efore I present the fourth and final essay in this series describing the nature of the ideal post-prohibition world, let me enumerate some of the points I have made thus far about that world.
1) In such a world, we would study literally ALL psychoactive drugs (for the first time in history) from the standpoint of how they affect actual users, according to those users themselves, rather than studying such drugs under a microscope as scientists do today in fealty to the passion-scorning tenets of the psychological doctrine of behaviorism.
2) We would consider ignorance and unwanted dependency to be the enemies, not drugs.
3) We would teach children from childhood that prohibition is wrong, not drugs.
4) We would acknowledge that there is no greater tyranny than to create laws that limit how and how much one is allowed to think and feel in life.
5) We would realize that it was always a category error to place materialist scientists in charge of mind and mood medicine. The proof is in the absurdum to which that approach has led, namely, the fact that our scientists are dogmatically blind to the obvious glaring benefits of the kinds of drugs that have inspired entire religions.
6) We would ostracize people for rude and aggressive personalities, insofar as it would be well-known that near-miraculous substances exist that can readily modify such pathologies. In other words, we would not just criticize those who misused drugs, but also those who failed to use them wisely when called for.
7) We would recognize that health is created by the balance of a wide variety of factors, and that therefore no drug is bad in and of itself. A substance that poses a problem for a young white American at one dose when used for one reason in one circumstance may yet be a godsend for a member of another demographic when used for another reason in another circumstance.
8) We would recognize that drug prohibition censors free speech - if only by encouraging individuals to self-censor, usually, indeed, so successfully that they are not even aware of their own self-censorship.
9) We would realize that psychology matters - common sense psychology, that is, as opposed to the passion-scorning psychology of behaviorism.
10) We would punish people for bad behavior, not for the supposititious pre-crime of substance possession.
Unfortunately, such an holistic and peace-loving world is anathema to a variety of American demographics, including materialist cynics, Chicken Little prohibitionists, and demagogue politicians. This is not surprising, however, since drug prohibition campaigns have always been a sort of a proxy battle for imposing a certain weltanschauung on the American people, a capitalist world view in which one lives a nervous life, mistrustful of their fellows and always desiring more and more - even when the planet upon which they are living has already been exploited to the point where its future habitability is now in question. Demagogues simply do not want a world wherein people are reasonable and can get along with one another. They want a world of finger-pointing in which we blame our own problems on others. Besides, when we re-legalize medicine, we deny the police their number-one weapon in cracking down on minorities, since drug prohibition incentivizes violence in poor and disadvantaged neighborhoods. This is so obvious and yet somehow completely invisible to the Drug Warriors. They seem to have learned nothing from the fact that liquor prohibition brought machine-gun-fire to American streets. Or is it that they know these things and are perfectly happy with using that knowledge to destroy America's cities - not to mention poor inner cities around the world?
I hope that these essays have given the reader an idea of the kind of weltanschauung that would be required for Americans to begin living peaceably with drugs, like actual grown-ups, rather than superstitiously outlawing plants and fungi, an approach to risk that will surely go down in history as the most idiotic attitude since the first cave people shouted "Fire bad!" I should probably answer one final objection that I can hear even now popping up in the "minds" of the opposition, however: namely, the idea that I am obsessed with drugs. My answer is: to the contrary, America is obsessed with drugs right now, even as we speak. I am not just referring to the fact that 1 in 4 American women take a Big Pharma med every day of their life, but the fact that we have saddled law enforcement with the 24/7 job of tracking down plants and fungi, meanwhile teaching our kids that "drugs" are bad in and of themselves without regard to context. Drugs, drugs, drugs! And make no mistake, this publicity leads to uninformed drug use, as it is supposed to do. See "Synthetic Panics" by Philip Jenkins to see how the DEA "bigs up" drug abuse for the purpose of keeping itself relevant by ensuring that drug problems always exist. They need a constant drug problem in order to justify their multi-billion-dollar budget . Drugs have to be constantly on our minds as Americans - otherwise we would find time to focus on the social problems for which drugs are a scapegoat.
In my alternative world, drugs would be viewed as mere tools to attain psychological outcomes - to increase relaxation, mental focus, improve mood, decrease anxiety, increase religiosity, or to investigate the nature of ultimate realities a la William James, who counseled us to use psychoactive substances for that very purpose. And while no one need use any drugs at all, they should surely not decide against them before we have even bothered to find out of what they are capable. There are drugs that can drastically improve our appreciation of mother nature and our appreciation of music - of course, no one specific person need ever use them, but to scorn them on principle seems masochistic unless one holds the metaphysical beliefs of a Christian Scientist, namely, that drugs are bad. Also, before we get on a groundless high-horse about our own abstention from drugs, let us remember that sugar is a drug, as is chocolate, as is caffeine, as is alcohol, as is nicotine. If you do not think so, then you can thank the drug-war propaganda to which you have been subjected ever since grade school when you first said no to the kinds of drugs that have inspired entire religions.
Finally, my world of the future would have no DEA. In fact, the DEA leaders would be rotting in jail after having been tried and found guilty for crimes against humanity for having lied about godsend medicines. The Drug Enforcement Agency would be replaced with the Drug Education Agency - to be staffed by what I call "pharmacologically savvy empaths." These would be caring people who have used a wide variety of drugs and are versed not just in pharmacology, but in ethnobotany as well, and are also kept up-to-date on the upsides and downsides of all drugs, used either alone or in various combinations. Their job would be to identify best use practices for avoiding unwanted dependencies based on "actual use" cases. They would also develop drug-aided strategies to help users overcome any unwanted dependencies that may develop in their lives. Likewise, the National Institute on Drug Abuse would be replaced with the National Institute on Drug Use, and would replace its microscopes with common sense: namely, the testimony of actual drug users. The agency would launch public service campaigns designed to convince Americans that unwanted dependency is the problem, not mere drug use. Of course, this will be a hard sell, because Big Pharma thrives on rendering drug users dependent for life - which is no doubt why it is so hard to end the Drug War and re-legalize the many far-less-addictive nostrums available for the conditions for which Big Pharma has a monopoly when it comes to treatment.
After the Drug War
"After the Drug War" is a series of essays describing the philosophical principles of the world that will exist after prohibition -- one in which we seek to use all drugs for the benefit of humanity and in which the bad guys are ignorance and racism rather than drugs themselves. This is a world in which we finally admit what has been obvious since 1920s America, that prohibition is the PROBLEM, not drugs. This is a world in which we recognize that the Hindu religion itself was inspired by a drug -- a drug that inspired and elated -- from which it follows that it is the suppression of religious liberty to outlaw drugs that inspire and elate.
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.
This is why we would rather have a depressed person commit suicide than to use "drugs" -- because drugs, after all, are not dealing with the "real" problem. The patient may SAY that drugs make them feel good, but we need microscopes to find out if they REALLY feel good.
People are talking about re-scheduling psilocybin, but they miss the point. We need to DE-schedule everything. It's anti-scientific to conclude in advance that any drug has no uses -- and it's a lie too, of course. End drug scheduling altogether! It's childish and wrong.
Peyote advocates should be drug legalization advocates. Otherwise, they're involved in special pleading which is bound to result in absurd laws, such as "Plant A can be used in a religion but not plant B," or "Person A can belong to such a religion but person B cannot."
I think we should start taking names. All politicians and government officials who work to keep godsends like psilocybin from the public should be held to account for crimes against humanity when the drug war finally ends.
M. Pollan says "not so fast" when it comes to drug re-legalization. I say FAST? I've gone a whole lifetime w/o access to Mother Nature's plants. How can a botanist approve of that? Answer: By ignoring all legalization stakeholders except for the kids whom we refuse to educate.
We have a low tolerance for the downsides of drug use only. We are fine with high risk levels for any other activity on earth. If drug warriors were serious about saving lives, they'd outlaw guns, free flying, free diving, and all pleasure trips to Mars.
Imagine if there were drugs for which dependency was a feature, not a bug. People would stop peddling that junk, right? Wrong. Just ask your psychiatrist.
In "How to Change Your Mind," Michael Pollan says psychedelic legalization would endanger young people. What? Prohibition forces users to decide for themselves which mushrooms are toxic, or to risk buying contaminated product. And that's safe, Michael?
"Judging" psychoactive drugs is hard. Dosage counts. Expectations count. Setting counts. In Harvey Rosenfeld's book about the Spanish-American War, a volunteer wrote of his visit to an "opium den": "I took about four puffs and that was enough. All of us were sick for a week."
Buy the Drug War Comic Book by the Drug War Philosopher Brian Quass, featuring 150 hilarious op-ed pics about America's disgraceful war on Americans
You have been reading an article entitled, After the Drug War Part 4 published on April 18, 2025 on AbolishTheDEA.com. For more information about America's disgraceful drug war, which is anti-patient, anti-minority, anti-scientific, anti-mother nature, imperialistic, the establishment of the Christian Science religion, a violation of the natural law upon which America was founded, and a childish and counterproductive way of looking at the world, one which causes all of the problems that it purports to solve, and then some, visit the drug war philosopher, at abolishTheDEA.com. (philosopher's bio; go to top of this page)