Not Using is Always Safer?
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
April 27, 2021
At the risk of getting banned, I would like to respectfully disagree with the final sentence in the r/Drugs Reddit description, which reads: "Not using is always safer."
This is a misleading oversimplification, which only makes sense if we tacitly agree with the hypocritical Drug Warrior definition of the word "drugs," as evil substances that cannot be used for good purposes. But this demonization of amoral substances is an American invention. No one thought this way about "drugs" in the past.
If Ancient Egyptians were told that "not using is always safer," Pharaoh Ramses III would have replied: "Nonsense. When I have a toothache, I'm going to use opium 1 as usual!"
If you had told Freud that not using cocaine was safer, he would have replied: "Safer than what? If I don't use cocaine to help me rise above my depression, I will not achieve self-fulfillment in life. I might then commit suicide. How safe is that, exactly?"
American fighter pilots have been given amphetamines before long missions precisely in order to KEEP them safe by keeping them as alert as possible. Would the pilots have been "safer" in that case if they had "just said no"?
I understand what the author meant when he or she typed "Not using is always safer," and no doubt SOMETHING like that needs to be said on a Reddit named after the politically-confused term called "drugs." I merely suggest that they find a more accurate way to say it. Because it is simply not true that "not using is always safer." That is just one of hundreds of Drug War myths by which Americans have been bamboozled over the last 100+ years of substance demonization.
That statement is not always true in the real world and makes sense only if we adopt the jaundiced religious view of Christian Science with respect to psychoactive substances, for it wasn't our scientists or our philosophers who first told us to say "no" to drugs, it was Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the Christian Science religion. She believed drugs were not safe, of course, but only because using them imperiled our ability to find salvation the "right" way, namely through the religious figure known as Jesus Christ.
I'd like to add one follow-up:
The Ecstasy-fueled Rave scene was the most peaceful phenomenon in British history, where Blacks, Whites, Indians, etc. came together under one roof to dance. It couldn't have been safer. But Drug Warriors don't care about safety. They judge a person by the contents of their digestive system, not by the way that they actually behave. And so E was demonized and banned. And what was the result? Overnight, the rave scene became the most dangerous phenomenon in British history, full of guns and violence. Why? Because "users" turned to anger-facilitating drugs like alcohol. Rave venues suddenly had to be policed by Special Forces troops. Special Forces troops! So Drug Warriors don't really care about safety, they care about keeping people from obtaining states of mind of which politicians do not approve.
The Drug Warrior will scream that a single solitary dancer had died from E. Yes, but why did Leah Betts die? Because the Drug Warrior had demonized Ecstasy to the point where its scientific study was not even possible and therefore safe guidelines could not be developed to remind such ravers that they needed to keep hydrated while dancing.
The outlawing of cocaine 2 3 alone has caused more deaths than any other drug law in American history and is even now spreading death, tyranny and destruction in Mexico and the Philippines. No, the Drug War is not about safety. The Drug War is about the American ability to control its people's thoughts, to prop up Big Pharma and Big Liquor, and to interfere in other countries at will, under the pretext of fighting the politically created boogieman called "drugs."
If we really believed that "not using" was always safer, we would all become Christian Scientists and ban alcohol and tobacco and even prosecute the psychiatric profession for addicting 1-in-4 American women to Big Pharma 4 5 meds. But when we say such things, we aren't being sincere. We simply want to convince people of the patently false idea that substances somehow become unsafe the moment that they are demonized by politicians. That, of course, is just Drug War propaganda.
If Drug Warriors cared about safety, they would prevent future mass shootings by treating hateful people with ecstasy, thereby teaching them how to literally "feel" for their fellow human beings. But such obvious ideas never occur to a Drug War society. And why not? Because Drug Warriors are not interested in actual safety but rather in the ongoing demonization of substances of which politicians do not approve. And so alcohol can kill thousands daily and we don't bat an eyelash. But if "E" brings about mere world peace and only kills those who have not been taught to use it wisely, we declare war on "E" and tell the world that "not using it is always safer." (Guns kill 50,000-plus every year in America.)
Is it safer to do without alcohol? A consideration of Mediterranean diets would tell us no. We can't declare substances unsafe simply because they've been demonized by politicians. Safety cannot be judged in the abstract. It must be considered with regard to the context of actual use. Health is a balance of factors, not a thing in itself.
Author's Follow-up: August 30, 2022
Only fancy. I indited that apparently somewhat insightful broadside a whole year and a half ago now. Wow. "Not too shabby," as my editorial assistant would have it. If I regret any thing about that capricious sally, it's the fact that I may have not put my case forcefully enough. For I would go so far as to say that not only is it GOOD to use "drugs" (hear me now and believe me later...) but it's RIGHT, PROPER AND NECESSARY to use drugs if the world is to survive. Why? Because The only way to teach most human beings to love each other is by counseling them for that purpose while simultaneously dosing them with empathogens, i.e., godsend medicines such as MDMA and psilocybin.
Yes, there are medicines called empathogens (a subset of the useful group of entheogens) that can make us literally feel compassion for "the other," an ability which, let's face it, our species could definitely use some help with cultivating. Until we accept that proffered balm of empathogenic medicine, we will continue to have wars and rumors of wars.
With apologies to Thomas More, though, a utopia can be described in just one simple English half sentence: a world in which unthinking hatred is outlawed and punished by a stint of compassion therapy using the best entheogenic medicines available, such as MDMA 6 and psilocybin.
That's why I call for a new world: one in which substances are legal but unreasoning hatred is a crime. In my world, no one's allowed to work at Burger King (let alone have their finger on a nuclear trigger) if they are filled with hate. Having hateful hearts is a luxury that the world cannot afford in the nuclear age. Outlaw hate and give free but informed access to those who seek transcendence with previously demonized substances.
Okay, this may not turn the world into hearts and roses, but it does have a real chance of ending school shootings and making the use of nuclear weapons truly unthinkable in the hearts of humanity.
Notes:
1: The Truth About Opium by William H. Brereton (up)
2: Sigmund Freud's real breakthrough was not psychoanalysis (up)
3: On Cocaine (up)
4: How Drug Company Money Is Undermining Science (up)
5: Why Is Biopharma Paying 75% of The FDA’s Drug Division Budget? (up)
6: How the Drug War killed Leah Betts (up)
Ten Tweets
against the hateful war on US
Cocaine use is a blessing for some, just a little fun for most, and a curse for a few. Just like any other risky activity. We need to educate people about drugs rather than endlessly arresting them for attempting to improve their mental power!
Many articles in science mags need this disclaimer: "Author has declined to consider the insights gained from drug-induced states on this topic out of fealty to Christian Science orthodoxy." They don't do this because they know readers already assume that drugs will be ignored.
They still don't seem to get it. The drug war is a whole wrong way of looking at the world. It tells us that substances can be judged "up" or "down," which is anti-scientific and blinds us to endless beneficial uses.
The problem for alcoholics is that alcohol decreases rationality in proportion as it provides the desired self-transcendence. Outlawed drugs can provide self-transcendence with INCREASED rationality and be far more likely to keep the problem drinker off booze than abstinence.
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.
I agree that Big Pharma drugs have wrought disaster when used in psychotherapy -- but it is common sense that non-Big Pharma drugs that elate could be used to prevent suicide and obviate the need for ECT.
It is a truism to say that we cannot change the world and that therefore we have to change ourselves -- but the drug war outlaws even this latter option.
UNESCO celebrates the healing practices of the Kallawaya people of South America. What hypocrisy! UNESCO supports a drug war that makes some of those practices illegal!
The most addictive drugs have a bunch of great uses, like treating pain and inspiring great literature. Prohibition causes addiction by making their use as problematic as possible and denying knowledge and choices. It's always wrong to blame drugs.
Reagan paid a personal price for his idiocy however. He fell victim to memory loss from Alzheimer's, after making a career out of demonizing substances that can grow new neurons in the brain!
Click here to see All Tweets against the hateful War on Us
Why Drug Free Zones are Dangerous and Unconstitutional
Open letter to Professor Troy Glover at Waterloo University
Copyright 2025 abolishthedea.com, Brian Quass
(up)