How National Geographic slanders the Inca people and their use of coca
an open letter to the National Geographic Society
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
May 21, 2024
Dear National Geographic Society:
Your 2013 article is biased against the Inca and their use of coca. The title reads "Inca Child Sacrifice Victims Were Drugged: Mummy hair reveals that young victims were heavy users of coca and alcohol" by Brian Handwerk1.
The implication is that the sacrifice victims were made compliant and drowsy via coca. But that is not what coca does. It sharpens one's senses. Does your author think that one can be "drugged" by drinking coffee? And what does he mean by "heavy users of coca"? The Inca WERE heavy users of coca, and the child was at the age of maturity, when they are allowed to chew their first quid. Sure, they are "heavy users" by prudish American standards, but not by Inca standards.
You also defame coca in an article entitled: "Coca: A Blessing and a Curse."2 That's a political statement on your part, not fact. Coca is not a curse, prohibition is the curse! It has consigned coca growers to a life of poverty and caused a civil war in Mexico.
Author's Follow-up: May 21, 2024
I submitted the above comment to the National Geographic Society today on their contact page3. The site returned the message "YOUR CASE WAS CREATED. We'll get back to you soon." Past experience suggests that they won't actually do that, but watch this space for updates just in case the moon should indeed turn blue.
Author's Follow-up: June 14, 2024
Surprise! Nat Geo has not gotten back to me yet. Only fancy!
Author's Follow-up:
September 19, 2025
Freud's great discovery was not psychoanalysis4. That was what he turned to only after he realized that the world was going to judge cocaine by its worst possible use -- thereby completely ignoring the fact that the wise use of such drugs could make psychotherapy unnecessary for most human beings. And so a great research project was launched -- thanks to which academics made a killing -- while the depressed and anxious lived meaningless lives! They outlawed all healing because there are always some irresponsible people in the world! And yet I am about the only one who dares to mention this.
When we outlawed cocaine and opium 5 , we outlawed healing. And the medical establishment knew what it was doing. The last thing they wanted was a drug that actually worked -- that would make their psychiatry unnecessary! Better hundreds of millions suffer than that!
Check out the conversations that I have had so far with the movers and shakers in the drug-war game -- or rather that I have TRIED to have. Actually, most of these people have failed to respond to my calls to parlay, but that need not stop you from reading MY side of these would-be chats.
I don't know what's worse, being ignored entirely or being answered with a simple "Thank you" or "I'll think about it." One writes thousands of words to raise questions that no one else is discussing and they are received and dismissed with a "Thank you." So much for discussion, so much for give-and-take. It's just plain considered bad manners these days to talk honestly about drugs. Academia is living in a fantasy world in which drugs are ignored and/or demonized -- and they are in no hurry to face reality. And so I am considered a troublemaker. This is understandable, of course. One can support gay rights, feminism, and LGBTQ+ today without raising collegiate hackles, but should one dare to talk honestly about drugs, they are exiled from the public commons.
Somebody needs to keep pointing out the sad truth about today's censored academia and how this self-censorship is but one of the many unacknowledged consequences of the drug war ideology of substance demonization.
The drug war is a slow-motion coup against democracy.
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.
Before anyone receives shock therapy, they should have the option to start using opium or cocaine daily -- and/or any natural substance that makes them feel that life is worth living again.
Drug prohibition is a crime against humanity.
The fact that some drugs can be addictive is no reason to outlaw drugs. It is a reason to teach safe use and to publicize all the ways that smart people have found to avoid unwanted pharmacological dependency -- and a reason to use drugs to fight drugs.
It's already risky to engage in free and honest speech about drugs online: Colorado politicians tried to make it absolutely illegal in February 2024. The DRUG WAR IS ALL ABOUT DESTROYING DEMOCRACY THRU IGNORANT AND INTOLERANT FEARMONGERING.
Katie MacBride's one-sided attack on MAPS reminds me of why I got into an argument with Vincent Rado. Yes, psychedelic hype can go too far, but let's solve the huge problem first by ending the drug war!!!
It is a violation of religious liberty to outlaw substances that inspire and elate. The Hindu religion was inspired by just such a drug.
It's rich when Americans outlaw drugs and then insist that those drugs did not have much to offer in any case. It's like I took away your car and then told you that car ownership was overrated.
Typical materialist protocol. Take all the "wonder" out of the drug and sell it as a one-size-fits all "reductionist" cure for anxiety. Notice that they refer to hallucinations and euphoria as "adverse effects." What next? Communion wine with the religion taken out of it?
The drug war is a slow-motion coup against democracy.
