an open letter to Joshua Falcon, author of Designing Consciousness: Psychedelics as Ontological Design Tools for Decolonizing Consciousness
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
January 5, 2025
i, Joshua.
I just read your 2020 paper entitled 'Designing Consciousness1' and found it quite thought-provoking. Given your academic interests, I thought you might not mind if I shared some thoughts that I had on some of the topics that you raised.
I think that the greatest indictment of the western mindset is the fact that we made a conscious decision to develop thermonuclear weapons in the 1950s, rather than recognizing the horrifying dangers inherent in that pursuit and so working relentlessly with friends and enemies alike to prevent such development2. We should have created a Department of Peace just as we had created a Department of War (eventually to be rebranded as the Defense Department). We should have begun working tirelessly to find ways to bring people together, in which case the strategic use of entheogens would have been an obvious tactic.
The second greatest indictment of the western mindset is the fact that those who still hold these irresponsibly hawkish views are now steadfastly opposed to the use of entheogenic medicines, substances that could help bring the world together and make us simply not want to use such weapons. They would rather risk nuclear annihilation than allow 'drug use,' such are the warped priorities of the Drug Warrior. Even those who consider themselves to have an anti-colonialist mindset have been taught (chiefly by the propaganda of censorship) to fear entheogens. These are the sorts of people who wring their hands over school shootings and youth suicide3 and yet are blind to the most obvious realistic answer to these problems: namely, the strategic use of empathogenic medicines to teach the hothead compassion and to convince the suicidal that life is worth living, not through words but by letting them experience feelings of acceptance and love and compassion.
Speaking of suicide, every suicidal individual should be equipped with a laughing gas kit, in the same way that we equip the allergy-prone individual with an epi pen. Instead, the FDA is now working to classify laughing gas as a 'drug,' a substance without positive uses, which is a double insult, insofar as laughing gas was the substance that inspired the ontology of William James, by teaching him that what we experience is but a utilitarian-biased fraction of any supposed ultimate reality4. This rating system is not science at work, it is politics and ideology.
Your paper also got me thinking about the western focus on utility. This puts evolution in a new and potentially colonial light. Evolution, after all, is all about finding utilitarian reasons for everything in the animal kingdom. Does the peacock have a beautiful tail? 'Oh, that's just to attract a mate.' Does the dog have a cute expression? 'Oh, that's just to arouse our interest and make us feed it.' The theory seems custom-designed to legitimize the viewpoint of a cynic and to justify interventionism for financial and political purposes.
But the standard bearer of this utilitarian viewpoint was George Santayana. In his series of books on the 'Life of Reason,' he uses the term 'savage' no less than 21 times, in curt dismissal of non-western people. Santayana wants nothing to do with teleology or final causes: he simply wants to know the utility of the world as we experience it. 'What can the objective world do for Santayana?' that's what he wants to know. Whatever he himself may have thought about psychedelics, his philosophy remains a cover for the Francisco Pizarros of the world to oppress at will, as when they show disdain for the plant medicines of the Andes. Mystical states are nonsense, after all; they have nothing to do with the price of tea in China!
To combat that mindset, I recently published an essay on Santayana's 'Life of Reason' entitled: 'If this be reason, let us make the least of it!5'
Regarding the increasing acceptance of psychedelic drugs, I see this as a positive step. Unfortunately, the takeaway for many seems to be that 'psychedelics aren't evil 'drugs' after all,' whereas the greater lesson should be that there are no such things as evil 'drugs' and that all substances have potential positive uses at some dose, in some circumstance, for some reason6. To think otherwise is anti-scientific and even superstitious.
Nor is it just psychedelics whose use can conduce to a greater appreciation of Mother Nature. In the right person, at the right dose, in the right circumstance, many non-psychedelic drugs can have that effect. Morphine can provide an almost surrealistically clear view of the natural world. In 'A Tale of the Ragged Mountains' by Poe, the protagonist has the following experience under an 'immoderate' dose of that drug:
'In the quivering of a leaf—in the hue of a blade of grass—in the shape of a trefoil—in the humming of a bee—in the gleaming of a dew-drop—in the breathing of the wind—in the faint odors that came from the forest—there came a whole universe of suggestion—a gay and motley train of rhapsodical and immethodical thought.7'
But the Drug War says we are not allowed to have that experience. This is why I say that, 'When we outlaw drugs, we outlaw far more than drugs.'
Unfortunately, strategic fearmongering tells us that we will never learn to use drugs like morphine wisely. But this is just a defeatist lie, spouted for the purpose of supporting a Drug War that locks up minorities by the millions, thereby handing elections to fascists. As Carl Hart reports in 'Drug Use for Grown-Ups', most people use drugs wisely, and this despite the fact that drug law does all it can to make drug use dangerous8.
When all drugs are re-legalized and we teach safe use (and use drugs to fight drugs, as in my essay on that topic9), we can benefit from a wide array of mental states, psychedelically provided and otherwise, without developing unwanted dependencies, or at least with a psychologically obvious way to combat them should they occur. We should remember, too, that all risky activities have victims -- whether we're talking about rock climbing, shooting a gun, or driving a car -- and that this reality should prompt us to teach, not to outlaw.
We should also be honest with ourselves about dependency. Currently, we believe it is highly immoral to be dependent on morphine, but we consider it a medical duty for the depressed to 'keep taking their meds.' The difference between the two is neither logical nor scientific, but merely based on the attitudes that we have been taught to associate with each usage pattern. One of the founders of Johns Hopkins University was a regular morphine user and was just as vocationally able as he would have been had he been taking Prozac - probably far more so in that morphine conduces to great concentration, especially in well-educated people who seek to leverage its power in this regard. Morphine's biggest downside compared to antidepressants was simply that the morphine user had to hide his drug and was taught by society to feel guilty about using it. In reality however, drugs are drugs, no matter how they're whitewashed by social narratives.
Finally, nothing could be more colonial than the DEA's scheduling system. It tells us that the kind of drugs that have inspired entire religions have no positive uses. This is only plausible to Americans because we see drugs through the lens of reductive materialism and behaviorism, thanks to which drug efficacy is established by looking under a microscope. And so the fact that a depressed person laughs while using a drug means nothing to western researchers. The fact that they may have spiritual revelations means nothing.
This illustrates a huge but seldom recognized problem with the western mindset: that it is obliged by reductive materialism to ignore psychological common sense, like the fact that feeling good helps, that looking FORWARD to feeling good helps, and that laughter is laughter10. This dogmatic blindness is, in turn, the result of a category error. Materialists are not the experts when it comes to drug use. The real experts are those pharmacologically savvy empaths who know what safe use looks like and can imagine creative protocols to put drugs to work on behalf of real people, based on their own psychosocial goals in life, not based on what hubristic materialist science believes should work for them according to theory.
But science magazines do not acknowledge this category error. In their articles on subjects like consciousness, fear and depression, the authors never contemplate the role that 'drug' use can play in enlightening us on these topics. Instead, they pretend that substance prohibition is a natural baseline and so discuss only legal substances11. This is false science, however. It purports to be giving us the latest state of knowledge, but it is really giving us a partial viewpoint based on what the government will allow it to contemplate. All such articles should come with a disclaimer, stating that the authors are ignoring the insights that might come from the consideration of illegal drugs and their current and historical use. But no such disclaimers are ever published - and so the Drug War gets off 'scot-free' for its censorship of academia.
And much of today's censorship is self-censorship, which should not be surprising considering that we all were subject to Drug War indoctrination starting in grade school12.
I just read a book by historian Ronald Hutton entitled: 'Witch: A History of Fear from Ancient Times to the Present.13' Like all academics on this topic, he points out the obvious fearmongering of the witch hunters of eld and of those who, to this very day, believe in witches and magic.
But these academics never look in the mirror.
The Drug War is the greatest example of strategic fearmongering in world history. And yet academics do not see this, even those who specialize in writing about the strategic fearmongering of witch hunters. And so these academics write of the 'herbs' used by witches, failing to realize that these 'herbs' were nothing but drugs, in the exact same way that 'meds' are drugs. They do not bring this connection to the fore, of course, because they simply 'do not want to go there,' as it is impolite these days (not to say dangerous to one's career prospects) to talk honestly about drugs.
I wrote to Ronald, suggesting to him that the impulse and motivations of the witch finder have never disappeared from society14. The witch hunter is today's Drug Warrior and the new witches are drug dealers. They are hated for strategic reasons: namely, because they pose a threat to the medical industry (as being a common sense alternative to the myopic behaviorism of modern doctors) and for helping to facilitate mental states that are mistrusted and feared by the powers that be.
My conclusion is that colonialism is alive and well. It is hiding behind the twofold veneer of 'materialist science' and the Drug War. Both work to make us dismissive of the holistic mind and mood medicines of indigenous peoples, the former via pseudoscience and the latter via fearmongering. The sad irony is that such non-materialistic drug use is the human species' last best hope for eradicating the hatred and suspicion that has our species on the brink of nuclear annihilation.
Drugs are not the enemy: hatred is the enemy.
Thanks again for the thought-provoking paper!
Pharmacologically Savvy Empaths
In an ideal world, we would replace psychiatrists with what I call pharmacologically savvy empaths, compassionate healers with a vast knowledge of psychoactive substances from around the world and the creativity to suggest a wide variety of protocols for their safe use as based on psychological common sense. By so doing, we would get rid of the whole concept of 'patients' and 'treat' everybody for the same thing: namely, a desire to improve one's mind and mood. But the first step toward this change will be to renounce the idea that materialist scientists are the experts when it comes to mind and mood medicine in the first place. This is a category error. The experts on mind and mood are real people with real emotion, not physical doctors whose materialist bona fides dogmatically require them to ignore all the benefits of drugs under the belief that efficacy is to be determined by looking under a microscope.
This materialism blinds such doctors to common sense, so much so that it leads them to prefer the suicide of their patient to the use of feel-good medicines that could cheer that patient up in a trice. For the fact that a patient is happy means nothing to the materialist doctor: they want the patient to 'really' be happy -- which is just there way of saying that they want a "cure" that will work according to the behaviorist principles to which they are dedicated as modern-day materialists. Anybody could prescribe a drug that works, after all: only a big important doctor can prescribe something that works according to theory. Sure, the prescription has a worse track record then the real thing, but the doctor's primary job is to vindicate materialism, not to worry about the welfare of their patient. And so they place their hands to their ears as the voice of common sense cries out loudly and clearly: "You could cheer that patient up in a jiffy with a wide variety of medicines that you have chosen to demonize rather than to use in creative and safe ways for the benefit of humankind!" I am not saying that doctors are consciously aware of this evil --merely that they are complicit in it thanks to their blind allegiance to the inhumane doctrine of behaviorism.
This is the sick reality of our current approach. And yet everybody holds this mad belief, this idea that medical doctors should treat mind and mood conditions.
How do I know this?
Consider the many organizations that are out to prevent suicide. If they understood the evil consequences of having medical doctors handle our mind and mood problems, they would immediately call for the re-legalization of drugs and for psychiatrists to morph into empathizing, drug-savvy shamans. Why? Because the existing paradigm causes totally unnecessary suicides: it makes doctors evil by dogmatically requiring them to withhold substances that would obviously cheer one up and even inspire one (see the uplifting and non-addictive meds created by Alexander Shulgin, for instance). The anti-suicide movement should be all about the sane use of drugs that elate. The fact that it is not speaks volumes about America's addiction to the hateful materialist mindset of behaviorism.
More proof? What about the many groups that protest brain-damaging shock therapy? Good for them, right? but... why is shock therapy even necessary? Because we have outlawed all godsend medicines that could cheer up almost anybody "in a trice." And why do we do so? Because we actually prefer to damage the brain of the depressed rather than to have them use drugs. We prefer it! Is this not the most hateful of all possible fanaticisms: a belief about drugs that causes us to prefer suicide and brain damage to drug use? Is it really only myself who sees the madness here? Is there not one other philosopher on the planet who sees through the fog of drug war propaganda to the true evil that it causes?
This is totally unrecognized madness -- and it cries out for a complete change in America's attitude, not just toward drugs but toward our whole approach to mind and mood. We need to start learning from the compassionate holism of the shamanic world as manifested today in the cosmovision of the Andes. We need to start considering the human being as an unique individual and not as an interchangeable widget amenable to the one-size-fits-all cures of reductionism. The best way to fast-track such change is to implement the life-saving protocol of placing the above-mentioned pharmacologically savvy empaths in charge of mind and mood and putting the materialist scientists back where they belong: in jobs related to rocket chemistry and hadron colliders. We need to tell the Dr. Spocks of psychology that: "Thanks, but no thanks. We don't need your help when it comes to subjective matters, thank you very much indeed. Take your all-too-logical mind back to the physics lab where it belongs."
Mad in America solicits personal stories about people trying to get off of antidepressants, but they will not publish your story if you want to use entheogenic medicines to help you. They're afraid their readers can't handle the truth.
The problem for alcoholics is that alcohol decreases rationality in proportion as it provides the desired self-transcendence. Outlawed drugs can provide self-transcendence with INCREASED rationality and be far more likely to keep the problem drinker off booze than abstinence.
I'm looking for a United Healthcare doctor now that I'm 66 years old. When I searched my zip code and typed "alternative medicine," I got one single solitary return... for a chiropractor, no less. Some choice. Guess everyone else wants me to "keep taking my meds."
There's a run of addiction movies out there, like "Craving!" wherein they actually personify addiction as a screaming skeleton. Funny, drug warriors never call for a Manhattan Project to end addiction. Addiction is their golden goose.
Like when Laura Sanders tells us in Science News that depression is an intractable problem, she should rather tell us: "Depression is an intractable problem... that is, in a world wherein we refuse to consider the benefits of 'drugs,' let alone to fight for their beneficial use."
Every time I see a psychiatrist, I feel like I'm playing a game of make-believe. We're both pretending that hundreds of demonized medicines do not exist and could be of no use whatsoever.
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 just asked New York Attorney General Letitia James how much she was getting paid to play Whack-a-Mole. I pointed out that the drug war created the gangs just as liquor prohibition created the Mafia.
Prohibition is wrong root and branch. It seeks to justify the colonial disdain for indigenous healing practices through fearmongering.
Uruguay wants to re-legalize psilocybin mushrooms -- but only for use in a psychiatrist's office. So let me get this straight: psychiatrists are the new privileged shaman? It's a mushroom, for God's sake. Just re-legalize the damn thing and stop treating us like children.
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, Drugs are not the enemy, hatred is the enemy: an open letter to Joshua Falcon, author of Designing Consciousness: Psychedelics as Ontological Design Tools for Decolonizing Consciousness, published on January 5, 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)
i, Joshua.
You have been reading an article entitled, Drugs are not the enemy, hatred is the enemy: an open letter to Joshua Falcon, author of Designing Consciousness: Psychedelics as Ontological Design Tools for Decolonizing Consciousness, published on January 5, 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)
