bird icon for twitter bird icon for twitter


Ego Transcendence Made Easy

or how Schopenhauer was reckoning without drugs before it was cool to do so

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

February 11, 2025



Update!

My ideal readers will be aware of the fact that I have been struggling with the philosophy of Schopenhauer lately, attempting to discover how his apparent ignorance of psychoactive medicines may have limited his understanding of the world, especially by encouraging him to derive a universal truth from his own pessimistic outlook on life. Indeed, this is just part of a larger shortcoming of Schopenhauer, that he tends to make unqualified pronouncements in cases where a little reticence would have gone a long way. Humility was clearly not the philosopher's strong suit, but a little more agnosticism on his part from time to time might have served him well. It might have helped future-proof his philosophical project and deprive his critics of easy targets. A case in point is his famous (or infamous) claim that

'Life is a business which does not cover its expenses.1'


Is this really an undeniable fact with which all sane people must agree, or is it not rather the complaint of a man who, like most people even today, was blind to the vast psychoactive pharmacopoeia of Mother Nature and so unable to imagine, let alone profit from, the mood and mind improvement that she offers to human beings gratis? I am not just talking here about the handful of psychedelics and entheogens which are slowly beginning to gain a grudging acceptance in certain mainstream circles, but rather about the worldwide natural pharmacopoeia as a whole, including also the synthetic substances that it can help inspire us to create in a chemistry lab.

For the fact is that no society has yet deliberately sought to profit from this worldwide pharmacopoeia of psychoactive medicines, except in order to exploit it for commercial gain by transforming it into one-size-fits-all medicines, especially ones for which lifelong dependency is marketed as a feature rather than a bug, as in the case of modern antidepressants 2, whose widespread use today is normalized in the modern trope: 'Don't forget to take your meds!' It has apparently never even occurred to governments that they should send out pharmacologically savvy empaths to find naturally occurring psychoactive medicines wherever they exist - in plants, trees or animals -- and invent common sense protocols for their actual use, for a wide variety of purposes, including increasing concentration, undertaking spiritual journeys, fighting depression -- and even replacing alcohol with safer, less socially costly drugs. Of course, tribal peoples have always used a locally available subset of such substances for human benefit, but no society has yet had both the ability and the inclination to scour the globe for such medicines. You might think this would be a top priority considering the fact that psychologically satisfied citizens do not generally shoot up grade schools and that entheogenic drugs in particular could bring the world back from the brink of nuclear armageddon 3 4 5 6 by helping to spread peace, love and understanding worldwide.

What's holding us back, then? Mainly, the fact that politicians today engage in strategic fearmongering about drug use, applying a safety standard to that activity that they set for no other risky behavior on the face of the earth: not for horseback riding, not for car driving, and certainly not for gun shooting, a sport for which most Drug Warriors despise any regulation whatsoever. Such fearmongering about the politically defined category called 'drugs' not only helps politicians to win votes from the ignorant populations that they have never sought to educate, but it allows such demagogues to pass laws that have a disproportionate impact on minorities. Thus politicians practice unregenerate racism under the cover of a pretended concern for public health. America has the largest prison population in the world thanks to such tactics, 1.8 million people in 20237, with an incarceration 8 rate for Black people that is six times that for whites9. And over a third of the federal prison population is incarcerated for drug dealing10: in other words, they are in jail for offenses that did not exist prior to 1914, when Congress first started crafting drug laws to punish minorities. This is injustice with a goal, of course, namely, to hand otherwise close elections to Drug Warriors by making it impossible and/or illegal for minorities to vote. Trump was right for the wrong reason: American elections are rigged, but by the War on Drugs, not by democrats.

But racism is not the only reason why America has no interest in making psychoactive medicines available to a suffering humanity. Americans have also made the devastating error of placing materialist researchers and doctors in charge of evaluating mind and mood medicine. This is a tragedy because the reigning ideology in science today is the obsolete theory of behaviorism, according to which the only facts that count when it comes to human behavior are those that can be quantified. This gives materialists the cover they need to collaborate with Drug Warriors in seconding their ridiculous claim that time-honored godsends actually have no proven beneficial uses whatsoever11. The benefits of psychoactive drug use are glaringly obvious and a matter of psychological common sense. But modern scientists ignore anything obvious when it comes to drugs, including anecdote and history. They do not care, for instance, that laughing gas makes a depressed person laugh, nor that they look forward to use and thereby profit from the therapeutic power of anticipation. They do not care that opium was considered a panacea by such ancient physicians as Galen, Avicenna and Paracelsus. They do not care that psychedelics inspired the Hindu religion. Instead they ask a truly metaphysical question in considering such substances: 'Yes, but do they REALLY work?', thereby demonstrating their complete lack of common sense about drug use. Their faithful commitment to behaviorism is not surprising, however, for it turns them into lucratively remunerated 'experts' in matters for which they have no training whatsoever: namely, in those concerning the human heart.

But getting back to Schopenhauer.

Consider a world in which aspirin use is considered to be immoral and so it is outlawed as a matter of course, a world that is governed by the drug-hating religious principles of Mary Baker-Eddy. We already live in such a world, except that the drugs over which we moralize today are just a hypocritically chosen subset of the ones which we should be scorning if we wanted to be logically consistent in enforcing our metaphysical prejudices. Now, consider a pessimistic philosopher in that aspirin-hating world who tells us that the existence of headaches is proof that god does not exist. Why, after all, would a supreme being make us suffer like that? Well, the fact is that no deity actually made them suffer like that; they were suffering because they had scorned to use certain medicines based on superstitious beliefs about the impropriety of doing so. They had asked for pain and they got pain. If they wanted to see what was wrong with their world, they had only to look in a mirror.

This is just the kind of world we live in today when it comes to godsend mind and mood medicines, like opium , LSD, MDMA 12 , coca and psilocybin - not to mention the hundreds of inspiring and non-addictive phenethylamines synthesized by Alexander Shulgin. We westerners have 'just said no' to pain relief, mood elevation and religious insight. And yet western philosophers feel free to trash our existence as a world full of suffering, as a business that does not pay expenses? That claim becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in a world in which we outlaw mind and mood medicine and/or fail to do everything possible to benefit from them both personally and as a species. I recognize that Schopenhauer lived before the unprecedented wholesale prohibition of psychoactive substances that we call the War on Drugs, and yet he shared the western bias against mind and mood medicine that one sees developing in Europe as early as 392 AD, when Emperor Theodosius banned the psychedelic-fueled Eleusinian Mysteries as a threat to Christianity13. Over a thousand years later, the Church supported the Bavarian Beer Act of 1516, which included a provision that outlawed the use of psychoactive mushrooms in beer14. These were the early days of the European witch hunts, when exotic herbal potations were associated with witchcraft and sorcery15.

The fact is that the European world has almost a 2,000-year history of mistrusting mind and mood medicine. This helps account for the disdain with which the Conquistadores of the 16th century greeted first the ritualistic use of mushrooms by the Mazatec Indians of Mexico and then the widespread chewing of the coca leaf by the Inca in Peru. Alcohol, in the form of beer, had already attained a kind of monopoly status in the European mindset when it came to substances that bring about self-transcendence. And so the ritual use of plant- and fungi-based alternatives to beer was regarded with suspicion. Such substances were considered a challenge to Christianity at best and the work of the devil at worst. The point here is that no one had to declare an official Drug War in 19th-century Germany in order to prejudice philosophers like Schopenhauer against the kinds of substances that we denigrate today as 'drugs.' He was already primed to pay such substances short shrift in his philosophy of reality, merely thanks to his status as a European.

So it's no surprise that Schopenhauer mentions such drugs only once in his chef d'oeuvre, 'The World as Will and Idea,' namely by referencing the erstwhile panacea known as opium . He does so in a passage describing the mental preparation necessary for perceiving the world objectively, that is, non-egotistically, by transcending self. Strangely, however, he likens the drug to 'spiritous drinks' and claims that it constitutes a hindrance for those seeking to observe the world objectively. 'What is rather required,' writes the philosopher, 'is a night of quiet sleep, a cold bath, and all that procures for the brain activity an unforced predominance by quieting the circulation and calming the passions.' I will gladly take Schopenhauer's word for it that such a protocol would work for him personally, but it is surely psychologically naïve to suppose that a cold bath and a night of quiet sleep are going to help the average self-absorbed Jack or Jill to transcend self! It sounds like just the sort of milquetoast advice you'd see on the cover of a pop-psychology magazine in the check-out counter of a modern American food store, those mags that give us a set of ten-step instructions for solving every imaginable personal problem, without the use of naughty drugs, of course -- only in this case, their headlines would read:

'Ego Transcendence Made Easy: Bathe Your Way to Perfect Objectivity!'


One wonders if Schopenhauer ever used opium . It certainly does not sound like it. I myself have not done so - the American government has seen to that - but the accounts I have read of such use suggests that the drug is all about empowering the user to transcend self, at least when administered to one who is mentally prepared for such an outcome. HP Lovecraft wrote of such opium -inspired transcendence in a fictional format in 'The Crawling Chaos,' a horror story cowritten with Winifred V. Jackson. The story is set rather vaguely 'in the year of the plague, when doctors sought to deaden the agonies they could not cure.16' The protagonist tells us that he has been given an overdose of opium by an overworked physician. The nature of the condition being treated is not clear, however the sufferer describes his main symptoms as an unendurable 'pain and pounding in my head.' The opium 17 soon alleviates that pain, but in a very interesting way, indeed. It does not get rid of the pounding; instead it causes the protagonist to regard the pounding as an external phenomenon, one which has nothing to do with himself personally. It lets him literally get outside of his own situation.

'Suddenly my pain ceased, and I began to associate the pounding with an external rather than internal force... I fancied the pounding was that of the vast, inscrutable sea as its sinister, colossal breakers lacerated some desolate shore after a storm of titanic magnitude.'


This is self-transcendence on demand. It is the rapid attainment of the kind of detached mental state that eastern yogis spend a lifetime trying to achieve. It is just the kind of self-detachment that Schopenhauer himself tells us is a necessary condition for perceiving the world objectively.

Cold baths, indeed! A quiet night's sleep! He might as well have counseled us to drink chicken soup and jog around the block -- or treated us to any of the other thousand-and-one vacuous bromides that pass for mental health advice in the age of the Drug War.

Schopenhauer makes it clear throughout his oeuvre that it is very rare to find a person who can transcend self and so deny the imperious will. But he never appears to have asked himself why such transcendence is so rare. It surely has something to do with a lack of common sense, combined with the fact that western philosophers are almost totally ignorant about the psychoactive pharmacopoeia that exists all around them, in plants, fungi, and animal life. The list of such substances is already long in our own time, especially considering how few resources have thus far gone into lengthening it. It would certainly become far longer in a world in which we prioritized the self-transcendence that Schopenhauer advocates, rather than superstitiously demonizing the very substances that help bring it about.

But I intend to practice here the reticence and agnosticism that I preached above. I will not conclude this essay by declaring that Schopenhauer was wrong to tell us that 'life is a business that does not pay expenses.' I will merely suggest that he had no right to say that given the fact that he was reckoning without drugs. Nay, I will even add the exculpatory observation that Schopenhauer is in good company, insofar as almost every philosopher of our time reckons without drugs as well. They write as if psychoactive substances do not exist, and are therefore blind to what the use of such substances can implicitly tell us concerning a wide variety of psychosocial topics, including brain function, consciousness, depression, anxiety, religion, and even the ultimate nature of reality writ large. For as William James said of drug-altered states in his classic tome, 'The Variety of Religious Experience':

'No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded.18'




Author's Follow-up: February 12, 2025

picture of clock metaphorically suggesting a follow-up




The more I criticize Schopenhauer, the more I feel the need to remind any eventual reader that I value the German philosopher's work for the hints that it contains about the nature of reality. I am simply trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, the insights from the pretended knowledge, the facts from the bluster, in the work of this occasionally ornery pessimist. In the plus column, I like his recognition that the forms of creatures has a timelessness to it, that each new chick, young puppy, or human child is just as brand-new and 'hot off the presses' as were similar chicks, puppies and children thousands of years ago, that the individual is subject to time but that the will, or the platonic form, appears to be immortal. In the debit column, however, he insists that this state of affairs represents teleology without design, that the will has no goal aside from the practical one of manifesting itself in the real world as a particular thing, animal or person. I do not say that this is impossible, merely that I am not convinced by the arguments that he posits in favor of such claims.

I particularly mistrust his tendency to argue from the basis of the kind of world that a god would presumably create, as if he knew -- or could know -- anything about such topics. This is self-contradictory on his part, for the key Kantian lesson that he himself puts forth in other contexts is that we can know nothing about ultimate realities. Schopenhauer admits this when he criticizes those who pretend to know that there is a God. 'How can you claim there is a God,' Schopenhauer essentially asks, 'when we can know nothing about such things?' And yet he himself claims to know what a god would have desired and hence created had such an entity actually existed, as, for instance, a God would have composed the oceans of fresh water that we could have drank therefrom. Such a claim assumes a raft of unknowable information: beginning with an understanding of the nature of the human self and where that self fits in in the totality of nature. Is our existence analogous to that of a fish in a goldfish tank, a creature that lives in but a small and highly unrepresentative slice of the world at large and so can never draw reasonable conclusions about that world; or are we sitting in the front rows of the drama of life and so capable of adequately conceiving the limitations with which the supposed playwright must have been working or that goal that he, she or it might have had in mind?

Schopenhauer claims that every change in nature is a causally necessary change that furthers the goals of the selfish will of a particular organism (or at least seeks to further them to the extent possible given the pushback that it encounters from the actions of other wills of other organisms). This is a plausible hypothesis, but his way of supporting it is completely invalid. Schopenhauer does so by pointing out the supposed mundane reasons behind the often marvelous adaptations that we see in nature in specific cases. He tells us, for instance, that tropical birds have yellow feathers so that they can recognize each other amid the plethora of other birds and animals in their environment. But surely there are many other reasons why their feathers might have been yellow, else the entire bird population would be yellow -- or at least the coloration of bird feathers would be evenly apportioned among the possible colors of the spectrum for the purposes of interspecies identification. He himself has the honesty to admit from time to time that such judgments may have an element of subjectivity to them (and I'm thinking, 'May?'), yet that does not stop him from using such arguments to make a case for the practical no-nonsense nature of reality. He says in effect, we may not know why the peacocks feathers are so alluring, but we can be sure that aesthetics had nothing to do with it. The peacock ultimately has fancy feathers instead of plain ones for the same reason that plumbers use Teflon tape instead of putty to prevent pipe joints from leaking. 'Nothing to see here,' cries Schopenhauer. 'Those beautiful feathers could not have been otherwise!'

Again, I do not say that Schopenhauer is wrong, merely that he has not made his case, at least when it comes to the ultimate meaninglessness of beauty and love. Of course, part of his problem was that he was born prior to the existence of both quantum physics and relativity theory. As David Bohm points out, both theories have at least one thing in common: they can only be understood by viewing the world holistically19. This is why the physicist praises meditation as a way to see the world more accurately, that is, as a oneness. One has to resist our tendency to abstract ourselves from nature and to parcel out reality in conformance with our own feelings of separateness, which are really just an artifact of our inability to transcend self. Schopenhauer might have appreciated Bohm given the former's interest in Asian metaphysic, but he might also have failed to grasp the implications of Bohm's message. For the principles of holism tell us that it is not enough to view the world as the interaction of separate parts, of discrete wills in Schopenhauer's case. The big picture matters and cannot be dismissed a priori as an an inevitable but meaningless outcome of ultimately meaningless causal processes. The world is not just a metaphysical 'survival of the fittest,' in which separate wills compete ruthlessly for the privilege of manifesting themselves unhindered and completely.

Perhaps we Homo sapiens were wrong to assume that the human-creation known as metaphorical language could ever be successfully used to prove -- or to disprove -- anything about such ultimates as God and the meaning of love and life. But there does seem to be a kind of experiential proof available to human beings, a proof that is communicated in feelings and intuitions rather than words. This would seem to be almost true of necessity, given that our language, being a human creation, is not nor never can be consistent and comprehensive enough to permit of a precise statement about universal verities, one that could never be plausibly gainsaid in that same human language. The only absolute truths therefore seem to be ones that can be communicated wordlessly, as for instance the messages contained in great music -- especially when heard under the influence of certain psychoactive substances, which help us transcend the ego and listen objectively. True, Bohm only speaks of 'meditation' for this purpose, but 'meditation' is often a code word for psychoactive drug use in polite society these days. In the age of the Drug War, merely to use the word 'drugs' in an ostensibly scientific context would be to lose one's respectability among the thoroughly brainwashed drug-haters of academia.





Notes:

1: The World as Will and Idea Schopenhauer, Arthur (up)
2: Antidepressants and the War on Drugs DWP (up)
3: 8 Nuclear Close Calls that Nearly Spelled Disaster Davidson, Lucy, History Hit, 2022 (up)
4: 35 Facts About Goldsboro Accident Hartwell, Therese, Facts.Net, 2025 (up)
5: A Darkening Horizon: Nuclear Dangers Around the World with Matthew Bunn Bunn, Matthew, Harvard Kennedy School, 2023 (up)
6: Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety Schlosser, Erich, Penguin, New York, 2014 (up)
7: Countries with the largest number of prisoners as of December 2023 Statista, 2023 (up)
8: Inner-City Violence in the Age of Mass Incarceration Thompson, Heather Ann, The Atlantic, 2014 (up)
9: Updated charts show the magnitude of prison and jail racial disparities, pretrial populations, correctional control, and more Prison Policy Initiative, 2024 (up)
10: US Sentencing Commission: Over 65% of Federal Prisoners are Black or Hispanic Defender Services Office Training Division (up)
11: Forbes Magazine's Laughable Article about Nitrous Oxide DWP (up)
12: How the Drug War killed Leah Betts DWP (up)
13: The Eleusinian Mysteries: A Gateway to the Afterlife in Greek Beliefs (up)
14: Why we don’t have psychedelic mushrooms in beer anymore like the good ol’ days Brendza, Will, Rooster, 2018 (up)
15: The Witch: A History of Fear from Ancient Times to the Present Hutton, Ronald, Yale Press, 2017 (up)
16: The Crawling Chaos Lovecraft, HP, hplovecraft.com (up)
17: The Truth About Opium by William H. Brereton DWP (up)
18: Scribd.com: The Varieties of Religious Experience James, William, Philosophical Library, New York, 1902 (up)
19: Wholeness and the Implicate Order Bohm, David, 1980 (up)


Schopenhauer




Schopenhauer synthesizes the ideas of Immanuel Kant and Plato with the philosophy of eastern religions, according to which we human beings are unable to perceive Reality writ large. This limitation, however, which both Schopenhauer and Kant suggest applies to all human beings as such, may actually only apply to "sober" individuals, as William James was to point out a decade after Schopenhauer's death. James realized that the strategic use of drugs that provide self-transcendence can help one see past the so-called Veil of Maya. He went so far as to insist that philosophers must use such substances in an effort to understand ultimate realities -- advice that, alas, most modern philosophers seem committed to ignoring.

"No account of the universe in its totality," wrote James, "can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded."

The exciting thing now is to consider Schopenhauer's philosophy in light of the revelations provided by certain drug use and to assess how such epiphanies tend to confirm, qualify or perhaps even refute the German pessimist's ideas about an eternal and unchangeable will, a will which the philosopher tells us is manifested in (or rather manifested AS) objects, animals, plants and persons. Schopenhauer tells us that the will corresponding to these entities is purposeful, for it seeks to create a specific kind of object or individual, but that the will is also meaningless, in the sense that the fact that it IS a specific kind of will is an arbitrary given, to which we need not ascribe any purpose, let alone a creator.

I am still trying to wrap my head around that latter claim, by the way, the idea that there can be teleology without design. I think I am slowly beginning to understand what Schopenhauer means by that claim in light of Kantian distinctions, but I am by no means sure that I agree with him. Yet I am not qualified to push back at this time. Further reading is required on my part before I can either refute him advisedly, or else concede his point. I do find, however, that Schopenhauer occasionally makes definitive-sounding claims that are actually quite open to obvious refutations.

In "The World as Will and Idea," for instance, he states that tropical birds have brilliant feathers "so that each male may find his female." Really? Then why are penguins not decked out with technicolor plumage? To assign "final causes" like this to nature is to turn animals into the inkblots of a biological Rorschach test. Not only is Schopenhauer being subjective here, but he has an agenda in making this particular kind of claim: he wants to underscore his belief that there is a logical causative explanation behind the fact that "wills" of the tropical birds would manifest in this colorful way, that it was not some act of extravagance on the part of a whimsical creator. But this kind of explanation is not the least bit compelling since one can imagine dozens of equally plausible "final causes" for the feature in question: the birds want to attract mates, the birds want to warn off predators, the birds want to mimic other yellow birds, the birds want to collectively camouflage themselves while roosting as one big yellow object (or more accurately, the birds' wills want to do these things).

One senses that Schopenhauer would respond as follows: "Fine. Give any reason you like, Ballard. But whatever you do, do not tell me that some suppositious God likes variety!"

And what about this famous pessimism? It's so typical of curmudgeons to try to make a universal law out of their own psychological issues. Schopenhauer does not seem to understand that attitude matters. As Hamlet said, "I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams." It is neither the shortness of life nor the inhumanity of our fellows that ruins life for most people -- but rather their attitude TOWARD such circumstances. Every manic-depressive knows that a blue sky and party cake does not make a person happy, nor living amid postcard scenery. One can commit suicide in Disneyland just as well as Skid Row. It is attitude, attitude, attitude that matters -- from which it follows that it is a sin to outlaw substances that can help us adopt a positive attitude toward life. That's why it's so frustrating that philosophers like Schopenhauer pretend that life can be judged by circumstances alone. Only once we acknowledge that attitude matters can we clearly see the importance of the many mind-improving medicines of which Mother Nature is full, the meds that we slander today by classing them under the pejorative label of "drugs."








  • Addicted to Addiction
  • Addiction
  • After the Drug War
  • After the Drug War part 2
  • Another Cry in the Wilderness
  • Assisted Suicide and the War on Drugs
  • Beta Blockers and the Materialist Tyranny of the War on Drugs
  • Brahms is NOT the best antidepressant
  • Case Studies in Wise Drug Use
  • Common Sense Drug Withdrawal
  • Declaration of Independence from the War on Drugs
  • Drug Use as Self-Medication
  • Drugs are not the enemy, hatred is the enemy
  • Ego Transcendence Made Easy
  • Elderly Victims of Drug War Ideology
  • Getting off antidepressants in the age of the drug war
  • Goodbye Patient, Hello Client
  • Harold & Kumar Support the Drug War
  • Heroin versus Alcohol
  • How Cocaine could have helped me
  • How drug prohibition destroys the lives of the depressed
  • How Drug Prohibition Leads to Excessive Drinking and Smoking
  • How Psychiatry and the Drug War turned me into an eternal patient
  • How the Drug War Blinds us to Godsend Medicine
  • How the Drug War is a War on Creativity
  • How the Drug War Killed Amy Winehouse
  • How The Drug War Killed Andy Gibb
  • How the Drug War Punishes the Elderly
  • How the Myth of Mental Illness supports the war on drugs
  • How to Unite Drug War Opponents of all Ethnicities
  • Hypocritical America Embraces Drug War Fascism
  • In Praise of Doctor Feelgood
  • In Praise of Drug Dealers
  • In Praise of Thomas Szasz
  • Let's Hear It For Psychoactive Therapy
  • Medications for so-called 'opioid-use disorder' are legion
  • Notes about the Madness of Drug Prohibition
  • Open Letter to Dr. Carl L. Hart
  • Open Letter to Erowid
  • Open Letter to Gabrielle Glaser
  • Open Letter to Lisa Ling
  • Pihkal 2.0
  • Replacing 12-Step Programs with Shamanic Healing
  • Replacing Psychiatry with Pharmacologically Savvy Shamanism
  • Science is not free in the age of the drug war
  • Shannon Information and Magic Mushrooms
  • Someone you love is suffering unnecessarily because of the war on drugs
  • Thank God for Erowid
  • Thank God for Soul Quest
  • THE ANTI DRUG WAR BLOG
  • The Drug War and Armageddon
  • The Great Philosophical Problem of Our Time
  • The Mother of all Western Biases
  • The Muddled Metaphysics of the Drug War
  • The Myth of the Addictive Personality
  • The New Age of Pharmacological Serfdom
  • The Origins of Modern Psychiatry
  • The Philosophical Idiocy of the Drug War
  • The real reason for depression in America
  • Using Opium to Fight Depression
  • What Jim Hogshire Got Wrong about Drugs
  • Why America's Mental Healthcare System is Insane
  • Why Americans Prefer Suicide to Drug Use
  • Why Louis Theroux is Clueless about Addiction and Alcoholism
  • Why Scientists Should Not Judge Drugs
  • Ego Transcendence Made Easy
  • How the Drug War limits our understanding of Immanuel Kant
  • How the Drug War Outlaws Criticism of Immanuel Kant
  • Immanuel Kant on Drugs
  • Psilocybin Breakthrough
  • Schopenhauer and Drugs
  • Too Honest to Be Popular?
  • What Can the Chemical Hold?
  • What's Drugs Got to Do With It?
  • Drug War Propaganda from Hollywood
  • Ego Transcendence Made Easy
  • If this be reason, let us make the least of it!
  • Psilocybin Breakthrough
  • Schopenhauer and Drugs
  • Too Honest to Be Popular?
  • What Can the Chemical Hold?
  • What if Arthur Schopenhauer Had Used DMT?
  • What's Drugs Got to Do With It?





    • Ten Tweets

    against the hateful war on US




    I'm told that science is completely unbiased today. I guess I'll have to go back and reassess my doubts about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

    High suicide rates? What a poser! Gee, I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the US has outlawed all substances that elate and inspire???

    Here is a sample drug-use report from the book "Pihkal": "More than tranquil, I was completely at peace, in a beautiful, benign, and placid place." Prohibition is a crime against humanity for withholding such drug experiences from the depressed (and from everybody else).

    Getting off some drugs could actually be fun and instructive, by using a variety of other drugs to keep one's mind off the withdrawal process. But America believes that getting off a drug should be a big moral battle.

    I think many scientists are so used to ignoring "drugs" that they don't even realize they're doing it. Yet almost all books about consciousness and depression (etc.) are nonsense these days because they ignore what drugs could tell us about those topics.

    This is why I call the drug war 'fanatical Christian Science.' People would rather have grandpa die than to let him use laughing gas or coca or opium or MDMA, etc. etc.

    What are drug dealers doing, after all? They are merely selling substances that people want and have always had a right to, until racist politicians came along and decided government had the right to ration out pain relief and mystical experience.

    The outlawing of opium eventually resulted in an "opioid crisis"? The message is clear: people want self-transcendence. If we don't let them find it safely, they will find it dangerously.

    Drug war pundits need to stop using the word "snorts" when it comes to cocaine. We "take" our "meds," and yet we "snort" cocaine, just like a pig. That is NOT neutral language, folks!

    The front page of every mycology club page should feature a protest of drug laws that make the study of mycology illegal in the case of certain shrooms. But no one protests. Their silence makes them drug war collaborators because it serves to normalize prohibition.


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






    The Dead Man
    Psilocybin Breakthrough


    This site uses no cookies! This site features no ads!



    Thanks for visiting The Drug War Philosopher at abolishthedea.com, featuring essays against America's disgraceful drug war. Updated daily.

    Copyright 2025, Brian Ballard Quass Contact: quass@quass.com

    (up)