Homepage of the Drug War Philosopher, Brian Quass
blog icon orange rss icon with stylized radio waves bird icon for twitter bird icon for twitter substack icon


back navigation arrow forward navigation arrow


Addiction

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

January 17, 2025



2025 update

Addiction is a loaded term in the age of the Drug War. There are at least four reasons why this is so.

  1. The Drug War does everything it can to make drug use problematic.

  2. The Drug War outlaws all drugs that could help folks get off of an undesired drug. For more on this latter topic, see my essay on 'Fighting Drugs with Drugs.'


  3. The Drug War ensures that users will have access only to the handful of substances that dealers find it profitable and practical to offer. It is therefore likely that the user will show a disproportionate interest in one particular drug, thereby increasing their potential for addiction.


  4. This negative outcome is all the more likely in the age of the Drug War when public policy holds that it's wrong to educate, that it's wrong to speak honestly about drugs and drug use.


Until we end the Drug War and attempt to fight addiction with psychological common sense -- something that materialist science ignores -- we can draw no conclusions about the degree to which addiction is an enormous problem versus an artefact of Drug War ideology itself.

Meanwhile, it is a little 'too convenient' for materialist science to tell us that there are 'addictive types' out there. First of all, that is an anti-scientific conclusion for it assumes that substance prohibition is a natural baseline, whereas it greatly influences every aspect of drug use. We will not know how large a problem addiction really is until we renounce Drug War policies which do everything they can to render drug use problematic.

There is also an unrecognized moral judgment involved when we describe a desire for drug experiences as pathological. Drug use represents a desire to transcend one's apparent limits in life (whether psychological, vocational, familial, etc.) and should not be categorized as pathological in itself. Indeed, an argument could be made that one is pathological, or masochistic, when they accept an emotionally or vocationally stifled life without taking every step possible to transcend one's limitations, by hook or crook, whether by meditation and jogging or by drug use. And we can hardly blame the transcendence seeker for botching the job of drug use when we as a society have done everything we can to make drug use risky through failing to regulate product, failing to provide options, and failure to provide education.

It's 'rich' when materialist scientists tell us that our desire for drugs is pathological. These are the same people who cannot see any of the glaringly obvious benefits of drug use. Their behaviorist principles prevent them from even signing off on laughing gas 1 for the depressed. Who cares if we laugh while using it, the materialist insists on finding a 'real' cure for our depression, you know, like the Big Pharma antidepressants 2 upon which one in four American women are dependent for life. That's bad enough, of course, but the materialists practice a kind of aggressive myopia when they go on to tell us that we are actually physically ill if we insist on obtaining the transcendence that drugs could provide.

There is a materialist agenda at work here: one that holds that we are merely the product of invisible chemical forces and that psychology does not matter. It is the hateful doctrine that blinds modern doctors to common sense. The world is our oyster when we adopt a common-sense shamanic approach to drug use, when we look at drugs not as threats, but as a means to self-understanding and insight. Until we change our world view on this topic, reductionist science will continue taking us down the path of pill mills and victim blaming.

The answer lies in the realization that empathic and experienced drug users are the experts when it comes to altered states and drug use, not materialist scientists. These modern shamans would combine the best of the east and the west. They would have a vast knowledge of psychoactive substances worldwide and would focus on the ways that they have been used profitably, by individuals and by societies, to achieve positive goals in the lives of individuals and communities.

This is why I created this entire site back in 2019, because I realized that vanquishing the Drug War cannot be accomplished by merely tweaking laws. It cannot be accomplished by merely moving a few white-privileged substances from the 'drugs' category to the 'meds' category. We need to drive a stake through the heart of Drug War ideology itself, and that requires an entire change of attitude on the part of the western world. We need to realize that materialist scientists are not the experts when it comes to mind and mood medicine and that human beings are not robots and that it is wrong to judge holistic-acting drugs by reductionist standards. The proof of efficacy of psychoactive drugs is to be found in anecdote and history and psychological common sense and not by looking under a microscope!

We could also add a fifth problem with the concept of 'addiction.' We live in a world in which 1 in 4 American women are dependent on Big Pharma 3 4 meds for life. This is not considered wrong: in fact, it is considered a positive good! We are told we need to 'keep taking our meds.' And yet if a person smokes opium 5 nightly, they are considered an addict. Apparently it is fine to be chemically dependent, but it's wrong to use a drug that, in theory, could cause cravings when stopped.

That's an insane standard. Why is it wrong for a drug to cause cravings when stopped but it's fine for a drug to make you merely feel like hell when it's stopped?

Insanity! Unexamined assumptions all down the line!



Author's Follow-up: January 18, 2025

picture of clock metaphorically suggesting a follow-up




The materialist will object that there are clear correlations that have been established between genetics and a propensity for, say, alcoholism. But this is not the issue here. The question is, how much would those propensities matter in an educated world in which alternatives to alcohol were freely available, alternatives that gave the 'users' the same (or better) emotional relief than that provided by alcohol?

In other words, those who study alcoholism are reckoning without the Drug War. They incorrectly assume that substance prohibition is a natural baseline from which to study so-called 'substance abuse,' whereas such social policy has a definite and enormous effect on the subject-related outcomes in the real world. Such researchers get to this point by ignoring psychological common sense. The Drug War (and our lack of drug education and research) leave the alcoholic with no way to get their desired 'lift' but with alcohol. Why are we then surprised when certain biochemically or genetically predisposed people develop a problematical relationship with liquor? We set them up for failure with the disastrous social policy of drug prohibition and enforced ignorance.

In a sane world, pharmacologically savvy empaths would find safe use protocols for using a wide variety of substances that we demonize today, such that we can profit from them as safely as possible, meanwhile avoiding those substances whose use is rendered unacceptably risky for us personally on account of our own personal genetic and biochemical makeup. We would no longer simply globally outlaw the substances that seem to pose a risk to white American young people in the fevered imagination of racist Drug Warriors -- those hypocrites who fight to outlaw time-honored panaceas while giving a greenlight to the infinitely larger threats of alcohol, guns, and cigarettes.














Notes for essay entitled Addiction:

1: Forbes Magazine's Laughable Article about Nitrous Oxide DWP (up)
2: Antidepressants and the War on Drugs DWP (up)
3: Seife, Charles. 2012. “Is Drug Research Trustworthy?” Scientific American 307 (6): 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1212-56. (up)
4: LaMattina, John. n.d. “Why Is Biopharma Paying 75% of the FDA’s Drug Division Budget?” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2022/09/22/why-is-biopharma-paying-75-of-the-fdas-drug-division-budget/. (up)
5: The Truth About Opium by William H. Brereton DWP (up)




read more essays here





Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US




Daily opium use is no more outrageous than daily antidepressant use. In fact, it's less outrageous. It's a time-honored practice and can be stopped with a little effort and ingenuity, whereas it is almost impossible to get off some antidepressants because they alter brain chemistry.

Folks point to the seemingly endless drugs that can be synthesized today and say it's a reason for prohibition. To the contrary, it's the reason why prohibition is madness. It results in an endless game of militaristic whack-a-mole at the expense of democratic freedoms.

When we place the FDA in charge of deciding whether a psychoactive drug should be re-legalized or not, we are asking them to decide on things like the relative importance of appreciating a sunset, a task for which the FDA has no expertise whatsoever.

Materialist scientists cannot triumph over addiction because their reductive focus blinds them to the obvious: namely, that drugs which cheer us up ACTUALLY DO cheer us up. Hence they keep looking for REAL cures while folks kill themselves for want of laughing gas and MDMA.

No imaginable downside could persuade westerners that guns and alcohol were too dangerous. Yet the DEA lies about almost all psychoactive drugs, saying there are no good uses.

Timothy Leary's wife wrote: "We went to Puerto Rico and all we did was take cocaine and read Faust to one another." And there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with that!!! The drug war is all about scaring us and making illegal drug use as dangerous as possible.

Whether we judge people only by the words that they say or only by the substances of which they partake, we are ignoring the most important things: what they really mean and how they really behave.

It's almost impossible not to have a problem with drugs in a world in which the government is spending over $50 billion a year to render drug use problematic.

I never said that getting off SSRIs should be done without supervision. If you're on Twitter for medical advice, you're in the wrong place.

Americans HATE big government -- and yet they have no problem with government using drug prohibition to control their pain relief and how and how much they can think and feel in this life.


Click here to see All Tweets against the hateful War on Us






back navigation arrow forward navigation arrow
Book Cover

Break the ice with a sledgehammer: place this book on your coffee table.

This book features 150 annotated images, designed to force brainwashed Americans to confront the fact that drug prohibition is wrong. Here is what author Richard Parrish II says of the book's compiler: "The drug prohibition philosopher provides first-hand, principled, persuasive, and insightful arguments against the current drug prohibition regime..."

Purchase Your Copy
Book Cover

Diary of a Drug Fiend

This is the only full-cast recording of Aleister Crowley's 1922 classic paeon to common sense. It is the first book -- and so far almost the only book -- to stake out a philosophy of drug use that is compatible with human freedom, one in which we learn to use drugs as wisely as possible for the benefit of humanity. This recording was produced by the Drug War Philosopher and your purchases help support his effort to push back against the tragically counterproductive policy of drug prohibition, in the name of human freedom and of humanity's right to heal.

Purchase Your Copy



No cookies, no ads paid for by amoral and immoral billionaires (or trillionaires).


Unless otherwise indicated, no AI is used in the creation of site content. These essays represent the original ideas of their author and not the ideas that the author SHOULD have based on an algorithmic parsing of existing data. For more on this subject, consider the AI-related viewpoints to which the author subscribes as delineated in the New York Times opinion piece entitled "What 370,000 College Essays Tell Us About A.I.’s Effects on Creativity" by Rebecca Winthrop of the Brookings Institution.

The Partnership for a Death Free America is a proud sponsor of The Drug War Philosopher website @ abolishthedea.com.


Copyright 2026, Brian Ballard Quass Contact: quass@quass.com

tombstone for American Democracy, 1776-2024, RIP (up)