Why Almost Any Psychoactive Drug Can Be Used for Religious Purposes
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
January 20, 2024
There is a simplistic notion, even on the part of reformers, that only officially "entheogenic1" medicines can be used religiously. To say this is to ignore the obvious, something that modern psychology, alas, has found all too easy to do in the age of the Drug War.
Take the following instance:
For at least 48 hours after I was sedated for dental surgery, I felt an unusual sense of being 'favorably disposed' toward the world. I was thinking of ways to be more generous to folks around me and was, in general, taking my problems a little less seriously. this state of mind was apparently induced by the effects of the anesthesia. and yet the substance(s) used would surely not classify as an entheogen, or even as an empathogen, as the terms are currently defined. yet common sense tells us that such a drug can help us achieve religious goals, such as being more loving toward our fellow human being. Unfortunately common sense has been banned from the laboratory in the age of the Drug War. That's why modern materialists can't figure out whether drugs like laughing gas and MDMA could help the depressed.2.
One could imagine, in fact, a church at which one is given, once a week, say on Sunday, a dose of such anesthetic to help favorably dispose one toward the world during the upcoming week. But Drug Warriors have raised such a big stink about "addiction" that this is literally all that Americans can think of when one writes of such a scheme. They've been given the message since grade school: drugs=addiction. This is about as scientific and unbiased as saying "horse riding equals brain trauma." Now, horse riding is, in fact, the leading cause of brain trauma in the United States, but to say that horse riding can only result in brain trauma is clearly a political statement designed to inspire hatred toward equestrian activities3.
There are endless ways that we could tackle potential habituation issues were we to adopt the proper and scientific mindset toward drugs4, especially if we spent billions on the problem rather than billions on arresting users. We need to start seeing drugs as the amoral inanimate substances that they are: substances that can and should be harnessed for the benefit of humankind. I have already written extensively on this topic so I will not go into detail here. Moreover, when all psychoactive drugs are legal again, we can start fighting drugs with drugs, for the biggest problem with "kicking" most drugs is psychological in nature, and these psychological misgivings can be easily negated and obfuscated when we use other drugs to make the user forget (and perhaps even wish "good riddance" to) the drug with which he or she seems to be having problems. As for physical addiction, there are already sleep cures for opiate addiction - and these can be perfected and then made permanent once we attack the psychological issues as stated above.
Finally, there are worse things than addiction, such as suicide, self-harm, and living a life of what one considers to be absolute meaninglessness. Moreover, "addiction" is really a political term, since we refer to the daily use of Big Pharma drugs as "maintenance therapy" - and there is no logical reason why it's okay to be dependent on Big Pharma but wrong to be dependent on naturally occurring substances.
But for now, my point is simply that almost any drug can be used religiously, given the proper mindset toward use. It depends on the goal of the religion too. If the goal is to encounter godhead, then drugs like coca and anesthetics may not work as directly as some might like -- and yet one is more likely to "encounter godhead" when living a fulfilled life, and non-entheogenic drugs can help that happen.
Even coca could be used religiously, for those who believe in the power of the human mind and reject the idea that it's somehow wrong to improve it with coca -- while yet being somehow right to jangle the brain with caffeine. Coca was considered divine by the long-lived Inca, who chewed the leaf daily for inspiration and endurance5.
In fact, a church in a free world could use a wide variety of drugs to induce states to help achieve various goals; but such an idea is so far ahead of our barbarous drug-demonizing times that I almost do not bother to mention it.
Finally:
I mentioned that the anesthetic left me feeling more friendly and outgoing than usual. Here's one concrete example of that.
My dentist happens to be the founder of a new line of healthy soft drinks, some of which I purchased at the local store after surgery. For the first 48 hours after surgery, I was thinking of writing a letter to him commending his soda and giving him some marketing ideas based on my past sales efforts as part of a start-up. Now, this is just not "like me." I would normally not be so other-minded and indeed the feeling has faded now to the point that I probably will not write such a letter after all.
But what strikes me is that no one ever includes such benefits when they discuss drugs, the benefits of turning the user into a better person. The typical "scientific" approach assumes that drug use is unnecessary and wrong and can have no positive sides. This is sheer propaganda and a Big Lie. Yet it is clearly accepted as gospel truth by the pharmacological powers that be. Otherwise we would be rushing to make laughing gas 6 and MDMA available for the severely depressed. But we have been brainwashed so thoroughly that we would rather Americans kill themselves than use substances of which politicians disapprove.
Author's Follow-up: March 13, 2024
Both physical and psychological addiction can be "beaten" by using drugs to fight drugs (see my many essays on this topic: search the word 'addiction' here), but Drug Warriors do not want to end addiction; they want to use the threat of addiction as an excuse to outlaw the substances that they hate. Moreover, Americans are intensely hypocritical when they tell us that drug dependence is horrible. The fact is that more than 25% of American women are dependent on Big Pharma 78 drugs9. Why is that a good thing, while dependence on other substances is a bad thing? The reason is not scientific, the reason is political.
Author's Follow-up:
September 28, 2025
Antidepressants have never encouraged me to be more friendly with others. And yet our politicians have no problem with the daily use of such drugs. This is just one of many signs that the Drug War presupposes a certain attitude about life and not just a certain attitude toward drugs. It is a hateful attitude that has no problem with drugs per se, but only with drugs that inspire and elate and create compassion. If the reader doubts this fact, consider what happened to the two Summers of Love on both sides of the Atlantic. Politicians used the fear of drugs to crack down on both events -- LSD in America and MDMA 10 in the UK. There is nothing that the racist demagogue politicians hate so much as peace, love and understanding. They want a world in which guns are relevant. Theirs is a religion of selfish mistrust, religious provincialism and beer-swilling prudery.
By reading "Drug Warriors and Their Prey," I begin to understand why I encounter a wall of silence when I write to authors and professors on the subject of "drugs." The mere fact that the drug war inspires such self-censorship should be grounds for its immediate termination.
Jim Hogshire described sleep cures that make physical withdrawal from opium close to pain-free. As for "psychological addiction," there are hundreds of elating drugs that could be used to keep the ex-user's mind from morbidly focusing on a drug whose use has become problematic for them.
Rick Strassman isn't sure that DMT should be legal. Really?! Does he not realize how dangerous it is to chemically extract DMT from plants? In the name of safety, prohibitionists have encouraged dangerous ignorance and turned local police into busybody Nazis.
It's really an insurance concern, however, disguised as a concern for public health. Because of America's distrust of "drugs," a company will be put out of business if someone happens to die while using "drugs," even if the drug was not really responsible for the death.
All drugs have positive uses at some dose, for some reason, at some time -- but prohibitionists have the absurd idea that drugs can be voted up or down. This anti-scientific notion deprives the modern world of countless godsends.
More materialist nonsense. "We" are the only reason that the universe exists as a universe rather than as inchoate particles.
Rick Strassman reportedly stopped his DMT trials because some folks had bad experiences at high doses. That is like giving up on aspirin because high doses of NSAIDs can kill.
Even the worst forms of "abuse" can be combatted with a wise use of a wide range of psychoactive drugs, to combat both physical and psychological cravings. But drug warriors NEED addiction to be a HUGE problem. That's their golden goose.
Brits have a right to die, but they do not have the right to use drugs that might make them want to live. Bad policy is indicated by absurd outcomes, and this is but one of the many absurd outcomes that the policy of prohibition foists upon the world.
Freud found that cocaine CURED most people's depression and he "got off it" without trouble. I'm on a Big Pharma antidepressant that has a 95% recidivism rate for long-term users. Drug prohibition is insane and a crime against humanity.
By reading "Drug Warriors and Their Prey," I begin to understand why I encounter a wall of silence when I write to authors and professors on the subject of "drugs." The mere fact that the drug war inspires such self-censorship should be grounds for its immediate termination.
