Beta Blockers and the Materialist Tyranny of the War on Drugs
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
November 6, 2024
've been on beta blockers for anxiety for years now and I recently decided that I finally wanted to quit.
How naive of me.
I found out that quitting may be impossible. Why? Because we have outlawed all alternatives to Big Pharma meds of this kind. Meanwhile, the daily use of a beta blocker has changed my body's biochemical baseline such that my body "panics" when it no longer senses the drug in its system.
DOGMATICALLY BLIND PSYCHIATRISTS
In researching this issue online, I was surprised to find a lot of glib praise for anxiolytic beta blockers from psychiatrists... and almost no talk about the difficulty of withdrawal, except for the usual sanctimonious and self-serving spiel admonishing us to see one's doctor for help in getting off such meds. Yes, they want us to "get help" from the same doctors who got us hooked on these drugs in the first place. This is "all of a piece" with the psychiatrist's support for dependence-causing antidepressants. Psychiatrists see no problem with mucking about with a patient's biochemical baseline, provided that they can do so in a way that turns that patient into a client for life.
Such indiscriminate praise for beta blockers is not just bad science, it's bad philosophy: it conveys the idea that drugs should be used merely to make life livable and not to help a person thrive. In fact, both beta blockers and antidepressants seem designed to KEEP a patient from thriving.
A WAR ON CREATIVITY
I can't imagine Allen Ginsberg writing "Howl!" while under the influence of mood-damping drugs like Inderal and Prozac -- but then maybe that's the point: the powers-that-be do not want poets writing poems like "Howl!", which is a caustic lament against the unimaginative materialism of Americans-- nor do they want authors like HP Lovecraft writing opium-inspired stories like "Celaphais," in which the homeless protagonist wanders through "the spectral summer of narcotic flowers and humid seas of foliage that bring wild and many-coloured dreams," nor do they find any benefit whatsoever in the exquisite appreciation of nature provided by the use of drugs like morphine, as described most particularly by Edgar Allan Poe in "A Tale of the Ragged Mountains."
So when materialist psychiatrists approve only of psychiatric drugs that neither elate nor inspire (in contradistinction to time-honored plant medicines, for instance, which often do both), they are not giving us some scientifically objective verdict about what actually works in this world: they are telling HOW they think we should go about curing ourselves: namely, in a seemly way that does not conduce to undue happiness or excitement on our part.
In short, "Everything as it should be, just like good Christians," as the phlegmatic old nanny wistfully remarks in "Uncle Vanya" by Anton Chekov.
But such assumption-laden pharmacological beliefs can be philosophically gainsaid by ordinary people without a medical degree... unless, of course, we legally require Americans to approach the world from a materialist viewpoint. How? By outlawing all substances that would help us approach the world of spirituality, healing and medicine from an holistic point of view, the nature-friendly viewpoint that is both explicitly and implicitly adopted by indigenous credos around the world, as in the Cosmovision of the Andes.
ALLEN GINSBERG V MATERIALISM
Speaking of Allen Ginsberg, he was way ahead of his time in diagnosing the materialistic tyranny of the war on drugs, as is demonstrated by the following citation from the beat poet as referenced by editor Oliver Harris in "The Yage Letters Redux" by William Burroughs.
"A materialist consciousness is attempting to preserve itself from dissolution by restriction and persecution of experience of the transcendental. One day perhaps the earth will be dominated by the illusion of separate consciousness, the bureaucrats having triumphed in seizing control of all roads of communication with the divine and restricting traffic. But sleep and death cannot evade the great dream of being and the victory of the bureaucrats of illusion is only an illusion of their separate world of consciousness." -- Allen Ginsberg 1
Unfortunately, almost all the "movers and shakers" in the war against the Drug War are materialists and work in environments where the funding comes ultimately, directly or indirectly, from the pockets of chemically dependent Americans like myself. (Where else do you think that Big Pharma gets its enormous budget for studying psychiatric meds?) I'm talking about authors like Rick Strassman2, Rick Doblin3, DJ Nutt4 and Carl Hart5. They are dogmatically incapable of understanding the full injustice of the materialistic war on drugs, at least to the extent that they are true to their materialistic bona fides and remember upon which side their toast is buttered. And why? Because as materialists, they are obliged to ignore all glaringly obvious and time-honored benefits of drugs (all uses that make sense merely because of common sense psychology) and to search instead for proof of efficacy under a microscope and/or in studies that attempt to meticulously ignore all the contextual psychological "biases" that are crucial in making holistic drugs effective in the first place.
These are the kind of authors who talk about "treatment-resistant depression," thereby implying that SSRIs and SNRIs have "sorted" depression,, as the Brits would say, but that there are a minority of folks whose finicky biochemistry does not accept these wonderful cures, in the same way that 30% of milk drinkers are lactose intolerant and cannot enjoy the blessings of milk.
But if materialists have "sorted" depression, I never got the memo. Was I happy and did not know it? No. It's just that my definition of an effective antidepressant is one that allows me to live large, not one that merely makes my gloominess survivable, which is the low bar set by materialist science for such drugs.
Besides, the use of the term "lactose intolerant" is just a linguistic exercise in blaming the victim: it is used by PR firms to whitewash the downsides of milk. This is a linguistic indulgence that we never dispense for demonized drugs. Far less than 30% of cocaine users are "cocaine intolerant," since the vast majority of drug users use responsibly, as Carl Hart reports in "Drug Use for Grownups," but we never blame users for their misuse of psychoactive substances but rather the substances that they misuse (bearing in mind that the term "misuse" is often just a synonym for mere "use" in the fanatically biased Christian Science lexicon of the Drug Warrior).
BLAMING DRUGS
This is the whole anti-scientific problem with substance prohibition: it blames drugs for problems that are caused by human beings and their bad social policies (including fearmongering, a refusal to educate, and a refusal to provide regulated product for desired substances). The Drug War is therefore superstitious and anti-scientific and just plain silly: it is as ignorant as outlawing fire because it can burn our fingers. And the worst part about it is: the Drug War is an eternal war. Agencies like the DEA do not want to end drug problems -- to do so would be to end their perceived relevance in the world and jeopardize their shamefully large multi-billion-dollar budget. They want to keep screaming "drugs" (PCP, ICE, crack cocaine, oxy, fentanyl!) thereby promoting their use by rebellious young people whom we refuse to educate about safe use (and whom we refuse to supply with regulated product), with the hope that more young people will die and that the agency can then turn around and blame these new DEA-caused deaths on drugs themselves, thus "justifying" still more obscene allocations of money on behalf of locking up American minorities and killing socially conscious protestors in Latin America (see, for instance, "Drug War Capitalism" by Dawn Paley6). What an enormous and seemingly never-ending scam!
In short, the Drug War kills far more Americans than would have ever died had the country not taking the unprecedented step of outlawing mother nature, a step which is so palpably anti-democratic and anti-Christian that the mind boggles, especially when so many of the defenders of this policy claim to be Christians themselves -- Christians whose ancestors came here to escape religious persecution, the same persecution that these "Christians" now lavish upon those who find spiritual and emotional support in time-honored plant medicines and fungi, substances which the Judeo-Christian God himself told us were good.
THOMAS SZASZ WAS RIGHT
Thomas Szasz was right: Americans just need to grow up when it comes to drugs7. This means, first and foremost, that we need to stop holding drug use to safety standards that we do not apply to any other risky activity on planet Earth, no, not even to free-climbing or swimming with sharks -- or to driving a car, for that matter! If we had the same risk sensitivity for these latter activities, Americans would still be riding horses -- and even that activity would have been banned after the well-publicized death of Christopher Reeves, which would have scared us into renouncing horseback riding once and for all.
To repeat: the claim that antidepressants "work" is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one, since the veracity of that claim depends entirely on how one defines the word "work," that is, on what one believes would or should constitute a "cured" state for the depressed. For folks like myself, a cure for my depression would mean that I would be allowed to "live large" and be the kind of person I want to be in life, but if antidepressants "work," they do not do so in that fashion. To the contrary, they hold me back from being all that I can be -- and the most that I can say for them after 40 years' worth of use is that they make depression livable, which is faint praise indeed, especially when we consider that outlawed drugs can exceed that stinting result by leaps and bounds.
PAUL STAMETS' CURE FOR STUTTERING
Paul Stamets cured his teenage stammering problem in one single afternoon with the help of a handful of psilocybin mushrooms, but the materialist does not consider such cures to be "real."8 Why not? Because the materialist expects to find proof of efficacy under a microscope or in studies so controlled as to ignore the potential for holistically inspired healing entirely. The best we can expect from them is for them to eventually schedule a clinical trial in which psilocybin is specifically studied for its power to end stuttering -- which will be decades from now, however, since the piecemeal approach of the materialist means that they must first study psilocybin for treating PTSD, then depression, then anxiety.... all under the absurd assumption that these conditions have nothing whatsoever to do with each other and are as causally unconnected as an ankle sprain and a headache. But again this is not objective science at work: it is dogmatic materialistic presumption which imposes separation where there is none in order to produce the shameless disease-mongering of the DSM manual.
CONCLUSION
It's no wonder that psychiatrists would be slow to jettison their materialist assumptions about drugs, however. They stand to lose a lot of money once they accept the proposition that drugs like psilocybin can be used holistically to achieve actual cures. Just think how much money the healthcare industry could have gotten out of Paul Stamets over the years had they gotten to him before he ingested those mushrooms. They could have diagnosed his problem as anxiety and put him on beta blockers for life. The money in psychiatry comes from TREATING the problems of patients, after all, not from curing them.
Getting Off Drugs
NOVEMBER 2024
I have written dozens of essays about antidepressants and the Drug War, but it is important to read this one first, for it contains the most up-to-date info on my battle to get off such drugs. This reading order is important because I declared premature victory against the SNRI called Effexor in recent essays, only to discover that the drug is far more insidious than I gave it credit for. It turns out withdrawing, at least for me, eventually led to deep feelings of abject despair, far greater than the depression for which I started taking the "med" in the first place.
The frustrating thing is, these feelings could be combatted by a host of drugs that we have outlawed in the name of our anti-scientific and anti-patient war on drugs. That much is just psychological common sense. But we have been taught to believe that there are no positive uses for opium, nor for cocaine, nor for coca, nor for MDMA, nor for laughing gas, nor for peyote, nor for the hundreds of inspiring phenethylamines synthesized by Alexander Shulgin, etc. etc. etc.
The truth is, rather, that Drug Warriors (and the millions whom they have brainwashed) do not WANT there to be positive uses for such drugs. No, they want me to "keep taking my meds" instead and so to enrich their investment portfolios in the pharmaceutical sector. Meanwhile, those without a vested financial interest have been taught that antidepressants are "scientific" and so they cannot understand my desire to get off them. They cannot understand the hell of being turned into a patient for life and having to make regular expensive and humiliating pilgrimages to psychiatrists (who are half one's own age) to bare one's soul for the purpose of obtaining an expensive prescription for a drug that numbs one's brain rather than inspiring it - and a drug which seems to counteract, dampen and/or repress most of the positive effects that I might have otherwise obtained by the few semi-legal alternatives to antidepressants, such as psilocybin and ayahuasca.
But it is just psychological common sense that I could withdraw successfully from Effexor with the advised use of a comprehensive pharmacy, including but not limited to the demonized substances listed above. But materialist science is not interested in common sense. And so they tell me that such drug use has not been proven to "work." But materialist doctors are not experts in what motivates me as a living, breathing, unique individual. The heart has its own reasons that reductionist science cannot understand. If I could look forward, at this moment, to relaxing with an opium pipe tonight, my mood would improve NOW, not just tonight. I would have something to look forward to. I would not feel the need to reach for that bottle full of Effexor pills that I was hoping to foreswear. Likewise, if I could use a drug to laugh and "touch the hand of God" (as with laughing gas and phenethylamines respectively), I could laugh at the pangs of despair that Effexor tries to throw my way.
Science's eternal response to such ideas is: "There is no proof that such things work!"
No, nor will there ever be in the age of the Drug War, in which such common sense use is punished by long jail terms and would never be favorably publicized, even if successful, since America's prime imperative in the age of the Drug War is to demonize psychoactive medicines, under the absurd assumption-laden idea that to talk honestly about drugs is to encourage their use.
Well, we SHOULD be encouraging their use in cases where they actually work, in cases, for instance, when they prevent guys like myself from killing themselves thanks to the knowledge that they are a bounden slave to the combined forces of the Drug War and Big Pharma's pill mill.
Besides, there is no proof that hugging works, but we do not need Dr. Spock of Star Trek to launch a study into that issue: we all know that hugging works by bringing two souls together both physically and spiritually. We do not need a map of brain chemistry to figure this out: the proof is extant, the proof is in the pudding.
But I haven't given up yet despite the setback in my most recent plan. I'm going to search the world for a place where I can get off antidepressants in a way that makes some psychological common sense.
Right now, all I see in terms of resources are a bunch of companies who, for large fees, will help me go cold turkey on antidepressants., or companies that claim to have found the right combination of legal herbal formulas that should make withdrawal easier. But to me, these are all what Percy Shelley would call "frail spells," concocted under the watchful eye of the Drug Warrior to make sure that nothing potent and obviously effective will get added to the mix. In fact, if a space alien came to earth and asked what sort of psychoactive drugs were outlawed, one could honestly answer: "Anything that obviously works."
Meanwhile, drug laws make it impossible for me to visit psychiatrists remotely online, requiring me instead to physically visit my doctors, thereby limiting rural residents like myself to accessing hayseed psychiatrists whose one area of expertise seems to be the writing of prescriptions for antidepressants. Talk to them about anything else, and their eyes glaze over. "That's all unproven," they'll say, "Or, no, we have yet to fully study such things." As if we have to study in order to realize that feeling good helps and can have positive psychological effects.
I'm sure that part of the problem with my withdrawal scheme is that I tried to get off the drug too quickly. But I only tried that because I can find no doctor who will compound the drug for me in a way that makes psychological common sense, namely, with daily miniscule reductions in dosage. My current psychiatrist told me that such compounding was unheard of and that I should drop doses by 37.5 mg at a time, since that is the lowest dose that the pharmaceutical companies create. He said I could start "counting pill beads" once I am down to a 37.5 mg daily dose if I wanted to taper still further.
I did find a compounding company that said it could compound Effexor in the way that I desire. But there's a big catch: they have to receive a prescription for that purpose. And I can find no doctor in the world who is willing to write me one. Even those who sympathize with my plight want me to become their full-time patient before they will even consider writing such a prescription.
So those who warned me against trying to get off Effexor were right in a way: it is extraordinarily difficult. But they feel to realize WHY this is so. It is not just because Effexor is a toxic drug, but also because the drug war has outlawed everything that could help me get off it.
This is why those pundits who sign off on the psychiatric pill mill are clueless about the huge problem with the war on drugs: the way it humiliates and disempowers millions. For it turns out that the phrase "No hope in dope" is true after all, but only when the dope in question is modern antidepressants.
OCTOBER 2024
Here are some of the many articles I have written about the philosophy of getting off drugs. Bear in mind that I am in the process of getting off Effexor myself and am exploring the power of "drugs to fight drugs" in so doing. And this is not a straightforward path given the sweeping limits that are imposed by drug law. So the question of exactly what might work (and how and when, etc.) is still wide open and I am advocating nothing, except the common sense notion that we can benefit from euphoria and mood boosts, yes, and that "drugs can be used to fight drugs," and in a safe way too -- a way that will prove far safer than prohibition, which continues to bring about daily deaths from drive-by shootings and unregulated product while causing civil wars overseas.
I guess what I am saying here is, this site is not purporting to offer medical advice. I avoid using such wording, however, because so many authors refuse to talk honestly about drugs, especially about positive drug use, for fear of being seen as giving medical advice, and this, of course, is just how drug warriors want matters to remain. It lets them shut down free speech about drugs.
Besides, I reject the idea that materialist doctors are the experts when it comes to how we think and feel about life. The best they can do as materialist is to tell us the potential physical risks of using holistically-operating drugs, but individuals are the experts on what motivates them in life, on their own particular hopes and dreams and on what risks they deem necessary to obtain them, to pursue happiness, that is, which objective our legislators outlawed when they outlawed all substances that can help facilitate happiness in the properly motivated and educated individual.
The real answer is not for authors to give groveling apologies for being honest, however: the real answer is for kids to be educated about the basics of wise substance use -- and for America to come to grips with the fact that we will always be surrounded by "drugs" -- and that the goal should be to ensure safe use, not to keep endlessly arresting minorities and removing them from the voting rolls on behalf of the clinically insane idea that we should outlaw mother nature to protect our kids -- and this in a purportedly Christian country whose very deity told us that his creation was good.
Materialist scientists collaborate with the drug war by refusing to see glaringly obvious drug benefits. They acknowledge only those benefits that they believe are visible under a microscope. The Hindu religion would not exist today had materialist scientists held soma to such a standard. But that's the absurd pass to which prohibition eventually brings us: scientists are put in charge of deciding whether we are allowed to imagine new religions or not.
The sick thing is that the DEA is still saying that psilocybin has no medical uses and is addictive. They should be put on trial for crimes against humanity for using such lies to keep people from using the gifts of Mother Nature.
One merely has to look at any issue of Psychology Today to see articles in which the author reckons without the Drug War, in which they pretend that banned substances do not exist and so fail to incorporate any topic-related insights that might otherwise come from user reports.
"Dope Sick"? "Prohibition Sick" is more like it. The very term "dope" connotes imperialism, racism and xenophobia, given that all tribal cultures have used "drugs" for various purposes. "Dope? Junk?" It's hard to imagine a more intolerant, dismissive and judgmental terminology.
Many in the psychedelic renaissance fail to recognize that prohibition is the problem. They praise psychedelics but want to demonize others substances. That's ignorant however. No substance is bad in itself. All substances have some use at some dose for some reason.
The Partnership for a Death Free America is launching a campaign to celebrate the 50th year of Richard Nixon's War on Drugs. We need to give credit where credit's due for the mass arrest of minorities, the inner city gun violence and the civil wars that it's generated overseas.
Unfortunately, the prohibitionist motto is: "Billions for arrest, not one cent for education." To the contrary, drug warriors are ideologically committed to withholding the truth about drugs from users.
SSRIs are created based on the materialist notion that cures should be found under a microscope. That's why science is so slow in acknowledging the benefit of plant medicines. Anyone who chooses SSRIs over drugs like San Pedro cactus is simply uninformed.
Until prohibition ends, rehab is all about enforcing a Christian Science attitude toward psychoactive medicines (with the occasional hypocritical exception of Big Pharma meds).
The MindMed company (makers of LSD Lite) tell us that euphoria and visions are "adverse effects": that's not science, that's an arid materialist philosophy that does not believe in spiritual transcendence.
Until we legalize ALL psychoactive drugs, there will be no such thing as an addiction expert. In the meantime, it's insulting to be told by neuroscience that I'm an addictive type. It's pathologizing my just indignation at psychiatry's niggardly pharmacopoeia.
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, Beta Blockers and the Materialist Tyranny of the War on Drugs published on November 6, 2024 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)
've been on beta blockers for anxiety for years now and I recently decided that I finally wanted to quit. 
You have been reading an article entitled, Beta Blockers and the Materialist Tyranny of the War on Drugs published on November 6, 2024 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)