Ten Points that no one ever makes about so-called Drugs
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
April 24, 2023
1) The Drug War outlaws free research by preventing and/or discouraging researchers from searching for cures for Alzheimer's 1 (in psychedelics that grow new neurons) and from following up the philosophical research of William James (viz. his use of laughing gas 2 and related substances).
2) Substance prohibition violates Natural Law insofar as it criminalizes the plants and fungi which God himself told us were "good." Instead, we're told that they have no positive uses, for anybody, ever. That is an anti-scientific stand, since there are no such substances in the world. Even cyanide and botox have positive uses.
3) Western science has long been biased on this topic. You can see this in the fact that almost no academic articles have been written on the positive uses of "drugs," but thousands upon thousands are written about drug "abuse" and "misuse." In other words, academicians have swallowed the Drug War lie that "drugs" can have no positive uses, for anyone, ever.
4) The treatment of addiction is hobbled by the fact that the Drug War establishes the goal of sobriety for the user. In this way, addiction treatment is the enforcement of the Christian Science religion according to which a hypocritically defined sobriety is godly (especially given that the goal is to make the addict accept a thinly disguised Christian God known as a "higher power"). If empathic individuals could, shaman-like, treat "addicts" with any substance on earth, the outlook for "addicts" would be so much better. In fact, I say that we have no right to opine on the ability of therapy to overcome addiction as long as we're denying the therapist a whole pharmacy full of useful drugs for that purpose -- not the least of which are the hundreds of non-addictive godsends formulated by Alexander Shulgin, promoter of MDMA 3 . If a boxer had one hand tied behind his back and kept losing fights, we would not claim that he was not strong enough to win, but we would rather point out indignantly that he, in fact, had one hand tied behind his back. Likewise if addiction seems unbeatable, let's also consider that we have tied one hand behind the back of any therapist by outlawing almost all the substances that could help effect a real change in the "user."
5) The term "drug abuse disorder" is a political label. The government first outlaws a plant that it had no right to outlaw. Then it claims that those who still want to access that plant are merely showing the symptoms of a "disease."
6) Most overdoses on heroin 4 are due to uncertain dosages. I think when we write about such overdoses, we need to point this out -- otherwise when we say "heroin overdose," the reader immediately tends to blame the "drug" rather than the prohibition which promoted fear rather than knowledge about safe use.
7) The original charter of the ONDCP (the Office of National Drug Control Policy) forbade board members from even discussing positive uses of "drugs." In other words, the ONDCP is a propaganda arm of the US government and its policies help explain why academia almost never talks about positive uses of drugs -- as, for instance, morphine 5 can give users a deep appreciation of Mother Nature and coca can bring about mental clarity a la Sherlock Holmes. Likewise, opium 6 has inspired poets such as Poe and Lovecraft.
8) The Drug War has taught us that addictive drugs can only be used addictively. This attitude rules out a legion of positive uses for drugs when used at the right dose in the right circumstance. So sure are we of this credo, that no one has stopped to think of how mental sufferers could be therapeutically treated with a variety of drugs under a variety of circumstances. We close our eyes to a plethora of options (limited only by the imagination) because of this drug-war superstition that addictive drugs cannot be used non-addictively.
9) As a lifetime "junkie" on Big Pharma antidepressants 7, the discussion of heroin always seems odd to me: Heroin addiction is always taken as a great evil. But how can that be in a country in which 1 in 4 American women are dependent on SSRIs for life? Not only is this not seen as a problem, but we actually encourage the chemically dependent women to "take their meds" -- whenever they begin to act in a way that bothers us. It seems like addiction bothers us because it's an esthetic thing -- we see the problems associated with it -- which are really problems caused by prohibition in any case. Whereas the chemically dependent never bother us because they always get their supply -- and if they don't, they'll just feel horrible inside, without bothering us by robbing banks or sitting idly on a street corner like the poor heroin addict, for whom the Drug War has made safe and affordable supply impossible.
10) Much writing about drugs seems to suggest that there's no possible cause for it -- except maybe despair. That is just not true. People's number-one goal in life is to succeed, NOT to live safely. If a "drug" helps them think more clearly or perform a job that they might otherwise "choke" at, the sane choice is drug use -- rather than to accept a tranquilizing drug from Big Pharma which dulls the mind and turns the user into a ward of the healthcare state. People want to transcend their own limitations -- and we should be helping them do that safely -- not punishing them en masse for valuing self-actualization over abstract "safety."
Most of all: We should be helping folks live the life of their dreams using any drug or drugs necessary for that purpose (unless, of course, the person being treated professes a belief in Christian Science, in which case they would presumably turn down Big Pharma 89 meds as well).
Author's Follow-up: April 24, 2023
I don't mean to imply that a therapist will always be necessary. Once we re-legalize Mother Nature and -- for the first time in history -- learn everything we can about every single psychoactive substance in the world, a savvy individual can leverage the knowledge thus obtained to engage in safe and productive substance use. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is more than a new protocol -- it's a new way of looking at the world, or rather an old way finally acknowledged: namely, the idea that Mother Nature produces godsends and that psychoactive medicines are tools to personal growth -- and not just moral traps for lapsed votaries of the drug-hating Christian Science religion.
The whole idea of addiction is a creation of the Drug War mentality: it is promoted by prohibition, first by outlawing popular godsends, thus turning users from "habitues" into "addicts" -- and then by outlawing all the substances that could be used to help a user get off a substance which they no longer desire to use. When I think of our dim prognosis for addicts these days, I think of a nation that has outlawed antibiotics and then gripes about the prevalence of bacterial infections.
This new way of life will not just tolerate drugs, but actually encourage their use in cases where they can bring love to a stubborn heart or make life livable for someone whose mindset -- for no fault of their own -- has a purblind focus on doom and gloom.
The Drug War is one big entrapment scheme for poor minorities. Prohibition creates an economy that hugely incentivizes drug dealing, and when the poor fall for the bait, the prohibitionists rush in to arrest them and remove them from the voting rolls.
The worst form of government is not communism, socialism or even unbridled capitalism. The worst form of government is a Christian Science Theocracy, in which the government controls how much you are allowed to think and feel in life.
I looked up the company: it's all about the damn stock market and money. The FDA outlaws LSD until we remove all the euphoria and the visions. That's ideology, not science. Just relegalize drugs and stop telling me how much ecstasy and insight I can have in my life!!
Drug prohibition is superstitious idiocy.
It is based on the following crazy idea:
that a substance that can be misused by a white young person at one dose for one reason must not be used by anybody at any dose for any reason.
The drug war normalizes the disdainful and self-righteous attitude that Columbus and Pizarro had about drug use in the New World.
We need a Controlled Prohibitionists Act, to get psychiatric help for the losers who think that prohibition makes sense despite its appalling record of causing civil wars overseas and devastating inner cities.
The "acceptable risk" for psychoactive drugs can only be decided by the user, based on what they prioritize in life. Science just assumes that all users should want to live forever, self-fulfilled or not.
The drug war has created a whole film genre with the same tired plots: drug-dealing scumbags and their dupes being put in their place by the white Anglo-Saxon establishment, which has nothing but contempt for altered states.
We have to deny the FDA the right to judge psychoactive medicines in the first place. Their materialist outlook obliges them to ignore all obvious benefits. When they nix drugs like MDMA, they nix compassion and love.
Before anyone receives shock therapy -- or the right to assisted suicide -- they should have the option to start using opium or cocaine daily -- in fact, any drug that makes them feel that life is worth living again.
(up)