Why it's wrong to follow the science in the age of the drug war
in response to a 2025 essay by philosopher Pascal Boyer
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
September 9, 2025
I was so excited! I received an email this morning from the Institute for Arts and Ideas advising me of the publication of a new essay on their website from philosopher Pascal Boyer entitled 'Following the Science' is a Dangerous Illusion1. "Wow!", I thought to myself. "I myself have written multiple essays on that very topic23456. Could it be that another philosopher has joined me in realizing that science is political in the age of the Drug War and that we should therefore most definitely NOT follow the science when it comes to studying drugs and drug use? Could it be that my own essays on this topic have been discovered by the author in question and that I myself have played a role in alerting him to the issue at hand? Could it be that I have finally reached the big-time, philosophically speaking?" I even briefly entertained the flattering possibility that I had been plagiarized! Of course, I was just assuming that Boyer's article was about drugs -- but then what else could it be about? Surely the Drug War provides the perfect example of the dangers of following the science, insofar as science is political in the age of drug prohibition.
So thinking, I clicked on the proffered hyperlink... only to discover that the promoted adumbrations had nothing to do with drugs whatsoever! I found instead that Mr. Boyer had organized his attack on scientific omnipotence around the topic of divination. Yes, divination: the practice of "reading" horoscopes and entrails and the like. To be sure, Boyer was raising a valid point: namely, that science is a human endeavor and therefore cannot always give us the definitive and unbiased answers that we may wrongly expect of it. Moreover, scientists qua scientists approach human activities like divination in dogmatic ignoration of the utilitarian 78 value of such practices and their role in establishing social cohesion in a given community. Agreed, agreed, agreed. And yet, like all authors these days, Boyer has missed the 6,400-pound gorilla in the room: the fact that the Drug War is the glaringly obvious example of why we should not "follow the science." Why not? Because science is political in the age of the Drug War. Moreover, it is materialist in nature, which means that it is blind to all the obvious holistic benefits of drugs and drug use.
With such considerations in mind, I posted the following comment to Boyer's essay -- or rather I submitted the following comments to the IAI website. Whether they will actually publish them remains to be seen -- since freedom of speech9 is never a "given" these days for those of us who dare to question Drug War orthodoxy.
Although you focused on divination, there is a huge problem with "following the science" when it comes to studying drugs. This is because Western governments and their materialist scientists are focused exclusively on the potential downsides of drug use. Such "science" is political. This is why we have a National Institute on Drug Abuse in America and not a National Institute on Drug Use. The scientists' job today is to prove that drugs are dangerous. They ignore all glaringly obvious holistic benefits of drug use. And so our materialist scientists gaslight Americans by telling us that drugs like coca and opium 10 have no positive uses whatsoever. Sigmund Freud knew better11. So did Galen, Paracelsus and Avicenna. But modern science is blind to anecdote, history and common sense. This is why our FDA promotes brain-damaging shock therapy for the depressed and yet refuses to approve of a wide range of drugs whose intermittent use could make shock therapy unnecessary12. This is what they call "following the science" in the age of the Drug War: depriving the depressed (and endless others) of all inspirational medicine -- you know, the kinds of medicines that inspired the Vedic religion13, the kinds of medicines that our predecessors considered to be panaceas!
This is why drug prohibitionists want us to "follow the science," because they know that materialist science is blind to the obvious when it comes to drug benefits. And so they hold drug use to standards that we set for no other risky activity on the planet, thereby forcing millions to go without godsend medicine, merely because such substances could be misused by white American young people -- the white American young people whom we refuse "on principle" to educate about safe drug use. This is why hospice kids in India go without morphine 14 today, because fearmongers and demagogues have taught us to fear drugs rather than to use them as wisely as possible for the benefit of humankind15. This is what comes of "following the science" in the age of drug prohibition.
This is all due, in turn, to a category error. It was a mistake to place passion-scorning materialists in charge of mind and mood medicine in the first place. By so doing, we have created endless jobs for materialists -- but only at the cost of completely disempowering human beings when it comes to healthcare.
I do not mean to pick on Pascal, but his article is just one of endless examples of how we completely hide the topics of drugs and prohibition from the public discourse these days. Our libraries and bookstores are full of books about drug misuse and abuse -- with nary a single title about positive drug use. Every book about human consciousness, every book about depression, every book about the search for ultimate reality should discuss psychoactive drugs and what their use can tell us about such topics. But we live in a world of make-believe in which we insist on two absurd propositions: 1) that drug use can have no upsides, and 2) that drug prohibition can have no downsides. And so our authors who write on such topics reckon without their host: they write as if drugs do not exist. Boyer is, alas, no exception to this rule of self-censorship: otherwise, he would have driven his thesis home by explaining how government drug policy is the prime example of the problems with following the science. This is because following the science does not mean being objective in the age of the Drug War: it means unfairly evaluating holistic medicines from the myopic viewpoint of reductive materialism 16. Following the science thus means practicing a kind of pharmacological colonialism. By so doing, our scientists lend a veneer of science to the xenophobia of the Francisco Pizarros of the world.
Don't the Oregon prohibitionists realize that all the thousands of deaths from opiates is so much blood on their hands?
Drug war pundits need to stop using the word "snorts" when it comes to cocaine. We "take" our "meds," and yet we "snort" cocaine, just like a pig. That is NOT neutral language, folks!
Someone tweeted that fears about a Christian Science theocracy are "baseless." Tell that to my uncle who was lobotomized because they outlawed meds that could cheer him up -- tell that to myself, a chronic depressive who could be cheered up in an instant with outlawed meds.
John Halpern wrote a book about opium, subtitled "the ancient flower that poisoned our world." What nonsense! Bad laws and ignorance poison our world, NOT FLOWERS!
The sad fact is that America regularly arrests people whose only crime is that they are keeping performance anxiety at bay... in such a way that psychiatrists are not getting THEIR cut.
People talk about how dangerous Jamaica is -- but no one reminds us that it is all due to America's Drug War. Yes, cannabis and psilocybin are legal there, but plenty of drugs are not, and even if they were, their illegality elsewhere would lead to fierce dealer rivalry.
The best harm reduction strategy would be to re-legalize opium and cocaine. We would thereby end depression in America and free Americans from their abject reliance on the healthcare industry.
William James knew that there were substances that could elate. However, it never occurred to him that we should use such substances to prevent suicide. It seems James was blinded to this possibility by his puritanical assumptions.
Proof that materialism is wrong is "in the pudding." It is why scientists are not calling for the use of laughing gas and MDMA by the suicidal. Because they refuse to recognize anything that's obvious. They want their cures to be demonstrated under a microscope.
I have yet to find one psychiatrist who acknowledges the demoralizing power of being turned into a patient for life. They never list that as a potential downside of antidepressant use.
Don't the Oregon prohibitionists realize that all the thousands of deaths from opiates is so much blood on their hands?
