The Drug War as a Litmus Test for Philosophical Wisdom
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
June 12, 2022
At the risk of flattering myself, I have concluded that an American's level of philosophical sophistication is in direct proportion to their ability to see through Drug War lies, for the Drug War is based on a variety of unspoken assumptions which do not stand up to logical scrutiny. That's why I say that Thomas Fleming is a great historian but a lousy philosopher. That's why I say that Francis Fukuyama is a great sociocultural critic but a lousy philosopher. That's why I say that Michael Pollan is a great naturalist but a lousy philosopher. For each of these authors fails to see the Drug War for the vast system of lies and misrepresentations that it is.
Thomas Fleming, for instance, tells us how racial prejudice, witch hunting and McCarthyism are prime examples of "a disease in the public mind", and yet the late historian ignored the fact that he himself was living and writing during the time of perhaps the greatest of all such diseases, namely the Drug War, which, like its fellows, gave Americans a disastrous lens through which to view the world around them - an ideologically blurred lens that blinded us to the thousands of deaths that the Drug War caused every year in inner cities, including over 800 deaths in Chicago alone in 2021, thanks to the gun violence 1 that was a direct result of prohibition.
Francis Fukuyama writes compellingly about the excesses of the left and right and how they are placing Liberalism in jeopardy, and yet he tells us that the push to defund the police is one of these excesses. Why? Because, he says, the police are needed in the inner cities to fight drug-related violence. To which the true philosopher responds, "Wait a minute, Francis: the police CAUSED that drug-related violence thanks to their enforcement of the new prohibition, which created gangs and cartels as surely as the old prohibition created the Mafia. To call on the police to help solve the problem of inner-city violence then is like calling on an arsonist to help battle the fire that he himself created."
Michael Pollan is certainly receptive to the idea that Drug War ideology blinds us to certain truths, as for instance he acknowledged after criticism that the term "recreational drug use" is fraught at best, since one person's recreational use could be another person's therapy and/or spiritual experience. That said, Michael fails to realize that this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Drug War linguistic misdirection. The very idea of "drugs" as defined today is a modern creation, designed to demonize politically despised psychoactive substances. "Drugs" is a political term, meaning "substances of which historically and pharmacologically clueless politicians disapprove." To start discussing the topic of "drugs," as Pollan does, without acknowledging this fact, is to render everything one says on this topic problematic at best.
In short, a modern Diogenes would not need a lantern to find a wise human being. He would simply need to ask the candidates what they thought about the "drug" problem. Any respondent who did not begin their answer by discoursing at length on the pejorative and hypocritical nature of the term "drug" itself could be quickly scratched off the list of potential know-it-alls.
Opium is a godsend, as folks like Galen, Avicenna and Paracelsus knew. The drug war has facilitated a nightmare by outlawing peaceable use at home and making safe use almost impossible.
Attention People's magazine editorial staff:
Matthew Perry was a big boy who made his own decisions. He didn't die because of ketamine or because of evil rotten drug dealers, he died because of America's enforced ignorance about psychoactive drugs.
Prohibitionists have blood on their hands. People do not naturally die in the tens of thousands from opioid use, notwithstanding the lies of 19th-century missionaries in China. It takes bad drug policy to accomplish that.
The 1932 movie "Scarface" starts with on-screen text calling for a crackdown on armed gangs in America. There is no mention of the fact that a decade's worth of Prohibition had created those gangs in the first place.
All of our problems with opioids and opiates could have been avoided had the busybody Chicken Littles in America left well enough alone and let folks continue to smoke regulated opium peaceably in their own homes.
What bothers me about AI is that everyone's so excited to see what computers can do, while no one's excited to see what the human mind can do, since we refuse to improve it with mind-enhancing drugs.
All drugs have potential positive uses for somebody, at some dose, in some circumstance, alone or in combination. To decide in advance that a drug is completely useless is an offense to reason and to human liberty.
The formula is easy: pick a substance that folks are predisposed to hate anyway, then keep hounding the public with stories about tragedies somehow related to that substance. Show it ruining lives in movies and on TV. Don't lie. Just keep showing all the negatives.
In 1886, coca enthusiast JJ Tschudi referred to prohibitionists as 'kickers.' He wrote: "If we were to listen to these kickers, most of us would die of hunger, for the reason that nearly everything we eat or drink has fallen under their ban."
Americans are far more fearful of psychoactive drugs than is warranted by either anecdote or history. We require 100% safety before we will re-legalize any "drug" -- which is a safety standard that we do not enforce for any other risky activity on earth.
Opium is a godsend, as folks like Galen, Avicenna and Paracelsus knew. The drug war has facilitated a nightmare by outlawing peaceable use at home and making safe use almost impossible.