and why I cannot understand how enemies of the drug war could do otherwise
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
October 29, 2024
This election to me is not about the issues. I do not want to fix the economy (or ruin it, for that matter) if it means putting a man in office who does not believe in the American democratic process and who has done everything he can to make us distrust the mainstay of democracy itself: the voting process. Nor is this election about the propriety of alternate lifestyles or of Confederate war memorials or even Roe v Wade (about all of which I believe that people can rationally disagree). This election is about fundamental democratic principles: the basic principles upon which America was founded, most notably the voting process in which all political parties have historically participated in order to ensure not just fairness, but the all-important perception of fairness, which alone can guarantee the survival of any democratic country by giving a measure of recognizable legitimacy to anyone who enters the Oval Office as Commander-in-Chief.
As a young person, I often volunteered to work at polling stations for presidential and state elections, and it was always inspiring for me. I saw people on both sides of the political divide working together to ensure accuracy, transparency and fairness. This is why a shiver went down my spine when Donald Trump made it clear in his September 2016 debate with Hillary Clinton that he did not trust the voting process and was already reserving the right to declare himself the winner if the votes did not go in his favor -- this after Al Gore in 2000 conceded an election result that he could have justifiably challenged, and why? Because he did not want to put America through a divisive and time-consuming recount process. How utterly different from the self-serving instinct of Donald Trump, who would happily put the country through any and all levels of unrest provided only that he be declared the winner.
I state this publicly here in answer to the cowardice of Jeff Bezos, who, for obvious financial reasons, has told his editors at the Washington Post (one week before election day, no less) that they cannot endorse Kamala Harris for president. Of course, I have slightly less "reach" than Bezos, but since this is a matter of principle, even we little people need to take a stand.
I am surely flattering myself to think that this essay of mine will either gain or lose followers for an online non-entity such as myself. That said, I assume that those few who do read my essays are, at very least, against the War on Drugs, and I cannot understand how someone with such views could support Donald Trump, a man who embodies the Drug War strategy of the "Big Lie." Say that American elections are unfair often enough and loudly enough and people will begin to believe it. And may Trump be cursed for all time for using that strategy to damage, and perhaps destroy, American democracy.
I know, I know: Kamala Harris, at best, represents "Drug War Lite," and will obviously have to be goaded by progressive state laws and public pressure to end her oppressive D.A. mentality when it comes to drug use. But she does appear to be open to common sense and not actuated merely by the desire to appear "tough on drugs." Meanwhile, Donald Trump has called for the execution of drug dealers and for the bombing of Mexico to stop the flow of drugs into the States. In other words, Donald Trump is determined to take the colonialist intolerance of the Drug War to its natural catastrophic conclusion: gleefully destroying the lives of minorities and foreigners in the process, like his fascist populist buddy, former Mexican President Obrador. You remember Andres. He was the guy who labeled the press "necrophiliacs" for attempting to determine the fate of the 60,000 Mexicans who have been "disappeared" as a result of Mexico's U.S.-sponsored War on Drugs1.
This populist madness is all about leveraging hatred for political gain and needs to be snuffed out at the polls, while we still have polls - something that Donald Trump appears to feel is unnecessary since he is, of course, always right and must of necessity be the eternal victor. (Trump is the epitome of the pathologically cocksure 'right man' discussed in The New Inquisition by Robert Anton Wilson.2)
The irony is that Donald Trump is right when he says that the election process is unfair, but he is right for the wrong reasons. The election process is unfair because millions of minorities have been removed from the voting rolls and thrown in jail thanks to drug laws that were written precisely for that purpose.
If we cared about the elderly in 'homes', we would be bringing in shamanic empaths and curanderos from Latin America to help cheer them up and expand their mental abilities. We would also immediately decriminalize the many drugs that could help safely when used wisely.
In his book "Salvia Divinorum: The Sage of the Seers," Ross Heaven explains how "salvinorin A" is the strongest hallucinogen in the world and could treat Alzheimer's, AIDS, and various addictions. But America would prefer to demonize and outlaw the drug.
This is why "rock stars" use drugs: not just for performance anxiety (which, BTW, is a completely UNDERSTANDABLE reason for drug use), but because they want to fully experience the music, even tho' they may be currently short on money and being hassled by creditors, etc.
Prohibition is a crime against humanity. It forces us to use shock therapy on the severely depressed since we've outlawed all viable alternatives. It denies medicines that could combat Alzheimer's and/or render it psychologically bearable.
Science knows nothing of the human spirit and of the hopes and dreams of humankind. Science cannot tell us whether a given drug risk is worthwhile given the human need for creativity and passion in their life. Science has no expertise in making such philosophical judgements.
Drug Prohibition is a crime against humanity. It outlaws our right to take care of our own health.
The DEA conceives of "drugs" as only justifiable in some time-honored ritual format, but since when are bureaucrats experts on religion? I believe, with the Vedic people and William James, in the importance of altered states. To outlaw such states is to outlaw my religion.
So much harm could be reduced by shunting people off onto safer alternative drugs -- but they're all outlawed! Reducing harm should ultimately mean ending this prohibition that denies us endless godsends, like the phenethylamines of Alexander Shulgin.
All drugs have positive uses. It's absurd to prohibit using them because one demographic might misuse them.
Clearly a millennia's worth of positive use of coca by the Peruvian Indians means nothing to the FDA. Proof must show up under a microscope.
If we cared about the elderly in 'homes', we would be bringing in shamanic empaths and curanderos from Latin America to help cheer them up and expand their mental abilities. We would also immediately decriminalize the many drugs that could help safely when used wisely.