How prohibition and materialistic science work together to turn Americans into babies when it comes to psychoactive medicine
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
August 30, 2024
he answer to most addiction problems is glaringly obvious. Any drug that elates and gives solace, however temporary that break might be, can be used as part of a program to make withdrawal palatable. This is just plain psychological common sense. But science has jettisoned common sense when it comes to psychoactive drugs. Why? Because scientists are not the experts when it comes to such substances. It was always a category error to think so. A materialist scientist may well be an unparalleled master in discussing drugs like penicillin and Pepto-Bismol, but they have no expertise in the psychological motivations of human beings, unless we grant their premise that humans are just biochemical robots, and surely rational people can beg to differ from that dictum. Real people, after all, are motivated by the anticipation of positive events. (It's weird that I even have to remind the materialists of this.) And it follows that they can be cheered up to some degree by the knowledge of some imminent emotional relief that they are about to receive from a mood-elevating substance, no matter how much money politicians have spent on demonizing the substances in question.
Again, it's embarrassing to have to dilate at length on such an obvious truth, but since materialists feel dogmatically obliged to ignore the obvious, let me provide a "for instance," an example of how anticipation changes attitudes in the real world.
Case 1: I am getting off of Valium and I am obsessing daily about my nervousness, always quick to associate it with my withdrawal scheme. I see no silver lining, no light at the end of the tunnel. I am sorely tempted to go back to my normal dosing with Valium.
Case 2: I am getting off of Valium and about to start obsessing about my nervousness - when I suddenly recall that I will be taking a "trip" on psilocybin tomorrow - or using cocaine, or smoking opium, etc. etc. - and I relax. The mere knowledge of that upcoming psychological relief provides a relief of its own in the here-and-now. I feel better NOW thanks to anticipation and I have no desire to backslide on my plan to end my use of Valium.
Let me repeat: This is all just common sense. But the materialist scientist never likes combining drugs, if only because it increases the number of variables for which they must account, thereby preventing them from achieving that aura of omniscience for which they strive. And so to them such a plan as described above in "case two" is a non-starter. But they usually contrive to give a moral turn to their hatred of excessive variables, and so they cry, "What? You want to use a drug to help you get OFF a drug?!", thereby implying that there is a logical reason why such behavior is wrong and even immoral. And yet any American with elderly parents knows that doctors do not have any problem with combining drugs with more drugs, indeed with many more drugs. The hackles only rise when the drugs in question have been demonized by politicians - at which point the medical doctor tells us the big lie: that such drugs have not been proven efficacious.
One can only scream in dumbfounded reply: "What? The only reason we have ever heard of such drugs is because people have always considered them to be damned efficacious, so efficacious that they'd risk life and limb to obtain the same!" Or, as Horatio might have put it: "There needs no ghost come from the grave to tell us this!" The well-known effects of these drugs typically compose a litany of precisely those traits that you would want to cultivate in a person getting off an unwanted substance: patience, dispassionate mentation, and a feeling of empowerment. If materialist science has not proven efficacy to its own satisfaction, so much the worse for materialist science. Let them go back to their labs and look for the proof that satisfies obtuse materialists- but do not expect us to wait - we, the anxious, the depressed, the addicted - while you make glacial progress in your attempts to verify common sense.
Yes, materialists can tell us if there is a generic medical risk to combining certain psychoactive drugs with other medicines - but that is the extent to which they can advise us. For unless a given drug combination is disastrous in every case, at every dosage, for every person, the scientist qua scientist can never tell us if the risk of use is worth it. Why not? Because he or she does not know the nature of the psychological benefits that the user is seeking viz. psychoactive drugs, nor the extent to which the user values those benefits. And you cannot perform a risk/benefit analysis about drugs if you are ignorant about the perceived benefits of use. And yet today's scientists at the FDA feel free to trash a drug like MDMA without even recognizing its enormous benefits: like bringing peace and love to the dance floors of Britain and providing ways that hotheads could be weaned off of acts of mass murder.
This is another reason why scientists should not be in charge of approving psychoactive drugs: because the decisions about such drugs have broad policy implications, on subject matters wherein the scientists have no expertise: like, how should we prioritize world peace and the safety of our young people in public schools? When the FDA drags its feet on MDMA, it is basically telling us that 100% "drug safety" is more important than the lives of children in schools or the safety of folks on a dance floor - or than our ability to come together as citizens of the world and avoid the nuclear Armageddon toward which we are too palpably heading today. Those are not medical decisions, those are not scientific decisions - and yet those are the decisions that the FDA makes when they do their best to keep a compassion-making drug out of the hands of a suffering and endangered public.
The answer to most depression is equally obvious. Give the depressive individual experiences that are compelling and teach - like psychedelic experiences - and allow for the occasional use of substances that simply cheer a body up. Psychiatrists will condemn this as "treating the symptoms," but that trope was always nonsense. The whole reason for today's mass dependency on ineffective antidepressants is that science tried to "cure" human sadness via biochemistry, which was folly from the start. You should never even try to cure such a basic and multiform condition as human sadness. It is sheer hubris to make the attempt, and you will eventually be punished by the gods for doing so (in this case, with the greatest mass pharmacological dystopia in human history, thanks to which 1 in 4 American women are dependent on Big Pharma meds for life1).
Moreover, there is nothing wrong with treating the symptoms, unless there is something wrong with having a drink of beer after a long day. Should we throw out all first-aid kits on the grounds that it's wrong to treat the symptoms? It's just psychological common sense that it helps a depressed person (or indeed anyone, for that matter) to feel good. Come on, folks! Yes, the Drug Warrior has made us fear addiction, but we are adults, remember? Most of us can use drugs wisely if you give us the information we need. Yes, there will always be losers in any game, and drug re-legalization will no doubt create a few pharmaceutical equivalents of the drunkard Otis from The Andy Griffith Show, but we would then be doing without the drug cartels and the mass deaths of young people on American streets.
I've said much of this implicitly in previous essays concerning the enormous lack of common sense about drugs, but I decided to make it more explicit here after I got so much pushback from my recent talk about using psilocybin microdosing to help me get off of Effexor. That plan merely made common sense, you see, and all the seemingly progressive websites out there were urging me to desist. Scientists, I was told, are the experts about such things, not mere users. The Surviving Antidepressants website tut-tutted me and the Mad in America page refused to print my story: because I was apparently speaking positively about unproven "drugs."
Unproven? Psilocybin shrooms have been proven to the satisfaction of the Mazatec people of Mexico for millennia. And the list of typically encountered benefits reads like a wish list for someone trying to get off an unwanted substance. Besides, the heart has its own reasons. I simply know that the drug would help me and I need no one else to believe that. In any case, scientists are NOT experts when it comes to psychoactive drugs - since they have no knowledge of the simple human psychology that renders their use important to real people in the real world. People love these substances as arrest records show-- and if the materialist doctors think that they're wrong, they should join a Christian Scientist group, not use science to crack down on drugs that they do not understand and which they even disdain to use themselves.
This is why America needs to grow up, as Thomas Szasz used to say. We need to start using common sense when it comes to drug use. The first step would be to put purblind materialist scientists out of the business of second-guessing our individual desires for improving our mood and mental outlook in this life.
Materialism
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.
Imagine if we held sports to the same safety standard as drugs. There would be no sports at all. And yet even free climbing is legal. Why? Because with sports, we recognize the benefits and not just the downsides.
Clearly a millennia's worth of positive use of coca by the Peruvian Indians means nothing to the FDA. Proof must show up under a microscope.
Most prohibitionists think that they merely have to use the word "drugs" to win an argument. Like: "Oh, so you're in favor of DRUGS then, are you?" You can just see them sneering as they type. That's because the word "drugs" is like the word "scab": it's a loaded political term.
In an article about Mazatec mushroom use, the author says: "Mushrooms should not be considered a drug." He misses the point: NOTHING should be considered a drug: every substance has potential good uses.
Rick Strassman reportedly stopped his DMT trials because some folks had bad experiences at high doses. That is like giving up on aspirin because high doses of NSAIDs can kill.
We live in a make-believe world in the US. We created it by outlawing all potentially helpful psychological meds, after which the number-one cause of arrest soon became "drugs." We then made movies to enjoy our crackdown on TV... after a tough day of being drug tested at work.
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.
I don't have a problem with CBD. But I find that many people like it for the wrong reasons: they assume there is something slightly "dirty" about getting high and that all "cures" should be effected via direct materialist causes, not holistically a la time-honored tribal use.
The idea that "drugs" have no medical benefits is not science, it is philosophy, and bad philosophy at that. It is based on the idea that benefits must be molecularly demonstratable and not created from mere knock-on psychological effects of drug use, time-honored tho' they be.
It's because of such reductive pseudoscience that America will allow us to shock the brains of the depressed but won't allow us to let them use the plant medicines that grow at their feet.
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, Common Sense and the Drug War: How prohibition and materialistic science work together to turn Americans into babies when it comes to psychoactive medicine, published on August 30, 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)
he answer to most addiction problems is glaringly obvious. Any drug that elates and gives solace, however temporary that break might be, can be used as part of a program to make withdrawal palatable. This is just plain psychological common sense. But science has jettisoned common sense when it comes to psychoactive drugs. Why? Because scientists are not the experts when it comes to such substances. It was always a category error to think so. A materialist scientist may well be an unparalleled master in discussing drugs like penicillin and Pepto-Bismol, but they have no expertise in the psychological motivations of human beings, unless we grant their premise that humans are just biochemical robots, and surely rational people can beg to differ from that dictum. Real people, after all, are motivated by the anticipation of positive events. (It's weird that I even have to remind the materialists of this.) And it follows that they can be cheered up to some degree by the knowledge of some imminent emotional relief that they are about to receive from a mood-elevating substance, no matter how much money politicians have spent on demonizing the substances in question.
You have been reading an article entitled, Common Sense and the Drug War: How prohibition and materialistic science work together to turn Americans into babies when it comes to psychoactive medicine, published on August 30, 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)