An open letter to apologists for the psychiatric pill mill
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
May 16, 2023
When you cut me do I not bleed, when I send you a 150-page book full of op-ed pictures in protest of the Drug War, do I not expect at least an acknowledgment of receipt?
I thought it would be easy to find like minds in the fight to end prohibition. Unfortunately, I'm finding some of the big-name advocates of pushback are also firm believers in the power of antidepressants to treat depression. I personally do not think that anyone completely understands the Drug War if they do not realize that the psychiatric pill mill is a creation of that war, for prohibition gives psychiatry a monopoly on mind medicine. The supporters will tell you that some users say the meds are useful -- but if I've learned anything after 40 years of poorly treated depression, it's that a depressed person is the last person qualified to report on their own condition. I used to think I was not depressed -- until I stopped and looked at all the goals I had not accomplished in the past in spite of what I had considered to be my firm commitment to that end. Moreover, when I took a psychedelic in my early 20s, I was exposed to a world of such potential that I suddenly considered the ambition of psychiatry to be shabby. Their pills did not motivate by comparison, they tranquilized.
But the real problem is this: 1 in 4 American women are dependent on Big Pharma for life. That's a scandal! And a profitable one, apparently, because I'm one of the few who even mentions that it exists. (See Julie Holland for some more honesty on this score.)
Now, you're not going to tell me that 25% of American females are depressed enough to warrant turning them into wards of the healthcare state? Well, if they really ARE that depressed, then something is wrong with America, not with its female population.
Finally, there are two ways to view psychiatry today: one is the typical way, in which we ignore the Drug War, in which we might say that pill-popping is the only game in town. The other way to look at psychiatry today is realistically, by taking into account the War on Drugs by which we outlaw almost all psychoactive medicines. If psychiatrists saw their field in this true light -- as the expensive and demoralizing default option only because of tyrannical law that outlaws Mother Nature -- then they would (or at least they should) be the first to protest on behalf of patients and say to government: "We demand the right to prescribe anything that will work for our patients!"
Instead, psychiatrists have gone along with this game, pretending that antidepressants are good in and of themselves, telling patients to "take their meds," when the best one can say about those meds is that they're the only medicine the government will let people have for depression. That's a poor endorsement, indeed, especially since lifelong users like myself have been infantilized by these drugs, turned into a ward of the healthcare state and denied the meds that truly work, many of which grow at my very feet, the drugs that inspire rather than tranquilize.
So if they wish to ignore me, fine: But I'm not going to behave like Polonius and switch my opinions to suit the self-interested zeitgeist, even if it might encourage folks like Rick Doblin and DJ Nutt to respond to my letters, or at least to acknowledge receipt for the book of mine that I sent them two years ago now.
Who are these apologists for antidepressants? They're easy to identify. Just look for folks who use the term "treatment-resistant depression," for the use of that term implies that there is a legal treatment for depression that works -- namely, SSRIs and SNRIs -- and that those who do not profit from them are the oddballs with the quirky body chemistry that does not know a cure when it sees one.
The irony is that, even if SSRIs worked for me, their positive effect would be negated by the fact that psychiatry has turned me into a patient for life, with the demoralizing trips to the doctor every three months to see an LPN that is half my age (at best), to answer questions about my predilection for suicide and how much sleep I'm getting.
LPN: Have you considered suicide in the last three months?
ME: Only when I think about the fact that psychiatry has turned me into an eternal patient.
May 19, 2023
I know, folks, I know. I told Brian he was being rash, but I'm just his editor, not his boss, as he himself is wont to remind me from time to time. I do want to clarify, however, that Rick Doblin is not a psychiatrist, as might be inferred from the above (ahem) no doubt interesting remarks. However, Rick IS playing ball with the DEA and the federal government, in which case he's probably forced to adhere to the well-funded fiction that SSRIs and SNRIs "have their place." I mean, who's going to help Rick with drug legalization if he even SUGGESTS that such a step would render Big Pharma's drugs unnecessary?
Still, I think it is fair to ask: would it have killed Rick to have at least acknowledged receipt of Brian's 150-page book with op-ed pics making points about the Drug War that no one else has even thought of, even if the book in question DID bash the psychiatric pill mill?
Hey, I don't know. I'm just a simple guy. Maybe it would have killed him. You tell me.
Editor's Comments:
May 13, 2025
I do not usually urge a writer to delete an essay, but you see, it's like this. Brian has another far longer essay pending publication in a MAPS newsletter, and I fear that the very existence of the essay above could deep-six that publication. True, Brian was not exactly being rude in the above essay, God bless him, and yet wasn't it Thomas Mann who said that most people are like children when it comes to receiving criticism of any kind, that they take it to heart, notwithstanding their determination to suggest otherwise by their outward appearance? Or was that Schopenhauer? Anyway, my fear is that Rick and his champions will be affronted by these admittedly good-natured sallies of Brian's and will therefore seek to bar him from joining in any reindeer games at MAPS.
Could they only know how many nights Brian has tossed and turned on his meager iron bed, wondering if he had not exceeded his philosophical remit in thus taking Rick Doblin to task. Why, this very morning, Brian entered the office with bleary eyes, muttering the now-familiar refrain: "No need to ask, Philomena: Yes, I was on the rack once again last night with respect to my perhaps overdone criticisms of Rick Doblin." That is my cue to shut up and start editing, though I am always tempted to say: "I told you so, cupcake. If you want to run with the pack, you have to refrain from criticizing the pack leader."
But then the point is moot. A month has transpired since I indited the previous paragraph, during which time the ongoing silence on the part of MAPS has eloquently apprised me of the fact that the once-ballyhooed publication of said essay is not going forward in any case. So, in the words of Roseanne Roseannadanna, "Never mind."
Open Letters
Check out the conversations that I have had so far with the movers and shakers in the drug-war game -- or rather that I have TRIED to have. Actually, most of these people have failed to respond to my calls to parlay, but that need not stop you from reading MY side of these would-be chats.
I don't know what's worse, being ignored entirely or being answered with a simple "Thank you" or "I'll think about it." One writes thousands of words to raise questions that no one else is discussing and they are received and dismissed with a "Thank you." So much for discussion, so much for give-and-take. It's just plain considered bad manners these days to talk honestly about drugs. Academia is living in a fantasy world in which drugs are ignored and/or demonized -- and they are in no hurry to face reality. And so I am considered a troublemaker. This is understandable, of course. One can support gay rights, feminism, and LGBTQ+ today without raising collegiate hackles, but should one dare to talk honestly about drugs, they are exiled from the public commons.
Somebody needs to keep pointing out the sad truth about today's censored academia and how this self-censorship is but one of the many unacknowledged consequences of the Drug War ideology of substance demonization.
When we outlaw drugs, we are outlawing far more than drugs. We are suppressing freedom of religion and academic research.
Healthline posted an article in 2021 about the benefits of getting off of antidepressants. They did not even mention the biggest benefit: NO LONGER BEING AN ETERNAL PATIENT -- no longer being a child in the eyes of an all-knowing healthcare system.
My approach to withdrawal: incrementally reduce daily doses over 6 months, or even a year, meanwhile using all the legal entheogens and psychedelics that you can find in a way likely to boost your endurance and "sense of purpose" to make withdrawal successful.
Psychiatrists prescribe drugs that muck about with a patient's biochemical baseline, making them chemically dependent and turning them into patients for life.
Materialist puritans do not want to create any drug that elates. So they go on a fool's errand to find reductionist cures for "depression itself," as if the vast array of human sadness could (or should) be treated with a one-size-fits-all readjustment of brain chemicals.
We should place prohibitionists on trial for destroying inner cities.
The press is having a field day with the Matthew Perry story. They love to have a nice occasion to demonize drugs. I wonder how many decades must pass before they realize that people are killed by ignorance and a corrupted drug supply, not by the drugs themselves.
Magazines like Psychology Today continue to publish feel-good articles about depression which completely ignore the fact that we have outlawed all drugs that could end depression in a heartbeat.
If drug war logic made sense, we would outlaw endless things in addition to drugs. Because the drug war says that it's all worth it if we can save just one life -- which is generally the life of a white suburban young person, btw.
I wish someone would tell Getty Images to start earning an honest living. I bought AI credits only to find that words like "mushrooms" and "drugs" could not be used. Nor "blood," nor "violence." And they refuse to refund my $14,99. Who is their service for, Ozzie Harriet?
When we outlaw drugs, we are outlawing far more than drugs. We are suppressing freedom of religion and academic research.