Depressed? Ask Your Doctor if Assisted Suicide is Right for You
Philosophical musings on the strange case of Claire Brosseau
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
February 16, 2026
I have already written half a dozen essays on the strange case of Claire Brosseau, the depressed Canadian entertainer who wants the state to help her commit suicide, the same state that is denying her all the drugs that might make her want to live. North Americans are so bamboozled by Drug War lies that we literally would prefer suicide to drug use.
The fact that none of the various "professionals" involved in the case even notices this glaring angle to the issue shows how propaganda and censorship have fried their brains. They now truly seem to believe the enormous demonstrable lie that psychoactive medicines have no positive uses for anybody, anywhere, ever, not at any dose or in any situation. For absent such indoctrination, the question on everybody's sane lips would be: why are we not fighting for Claire's right to the use of the plants of Mother Nature, why are we not fighting for her right to take care of her own health as she sees fit: why, in short, are we not fighting to end drug prohibition on her behalf rather than to help her to kill herself so that she can escape the hell that drug prohibition is forcing her to endure totally unnecessarily?
It seems Claire herself is bamboozled, because she seems to believe that drugs have nothing to offer her -- which is absurd considering that drugs have inspired entire religions and many have the power to elate and inspire in real-time, notwithstanding the self-interested lies of medical doctors who give us their metaphysical spiel about the need for "real" cures: you know, the kinds that turn the "med" user into patients for life. The very idea that drugs cannot help with depression is an enormous self-interested lie of the medical establishment, first promulgated when doctors saw their business model endangered by drugs that really worked, first opium, and then cocaine.
Modern drug attitudes are beyond parody. Depressed westerners demand that the state use drugs to kill them, but they don't demand their right to the drugs that could make them want to live.
Let us, however, ignore the fact that drug prohibition is rendering suicide necessary here (at least in the indoctrinated mind of Claire), and let us look at the case in isolation, as do all other pundits on this issue, more's the pity. Even if we assume the big lie here, namely that no drugs could help Claire, there is something ironic about granting the right to die to an ardent activist on that topic. For the mere fact that Claire can function enough to put her cause on the map -- with the drug-bashing New York Times, no less -- and to argue for herself so effectively makes me doubt her need for suicide. What a paradox, in fact: the more powerful her arguments, the more I question whether she really needs such a drastic measure. Of course, in reality it is Claire's decision -- but it can only REALLY be her decision were we to end drug prohibition, and that is not Claire's goal, unfortunately. Instead of fighting for the return of a time-honored right to heal, she is seeking instead for a recherché new right to have the government help her to kill herself -- and this, to repeat, is the same government that is denying her the medicines that could make her want to live!
Outlawing drugs is outlawing obvious therapies for Alzheimer's and autism patients, therapies based on common sense and not on the passion-free behaviorism of modern scientists.
There are a potentially vast number of non-addictive drugs that could be used strategically in therapy. They elate and "free the tongue" to help talk therapy really work. Even "addictive" drugs can be used non-addictively, prohibitionist propaganda notwithstanding.
I've been told by many that I should have seen "my doctor" before withdrawing from Effexor. But, A) My doctor got me hooked on the junk in the first place, and, B) That doctor completely ignores the OBVIOUS benefits of indigenous meds and focuses only on theoretical downsides.
The media called out Trump for fearmongering about immigrants, but the media engages in fearmongering when it comes to drugs. The latest TV plot line: "white teenage girl forced to use fentanyl!" America loves to feel morally superior about "drugs."
It is a violation of religious liberty to outlaw substances that inspire and elate. The Hindu religion was inspired by just such a drug.
Katie MacBride's one-sided attack on MAPS reminds me of why I got into an argument with Vincent Rado. Yes, psychedelic hype can go too far, but let's solve the huge problem first by ending the drug war!!!
What bothers me about AI is that everyone's so excited to see what computers can do, while no one's excited to see what the human mind can do, since we refuse to improve it with mind-enhancing drugs.
The Drug War is based on a huge number of misconceptions and prejudices. Obviously it's about power and racism too. It's all of the above. But every time I don't mention one specifically, someone makes out that I'm a moron. Gotta love Twitter.
The drug war normalizes the disdainful and self-righteous attitude that Columbus and Pizarro had about drug use in the New World.
Just think how much money bar owners in the Old West would have saved on restoration expenses if they had served MDMA instead of whiskey.
(up)