Getting off Effexor MY WAY

introduction to the Drug War Philosopher website at abolishthedea.com

Getting off Effexor MY WAY

response to pushback from the Surviving Antidepressants website

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

August 8, 2024

On August 7, 2024, I went to the Surviving Antidepressants website and posted my plan to get off Effexor ¹ while microdosing on psilocybin. I was (naively) surprised by the pushback in the initial response, to which I responded as follows.

Update: July 09, 2025

I have to disagree with you about psilocybin. It is a time-honored medicine going back millennia. I invite you to watch the video with Paul Stamets ² on this topic. The problem is that materialist science is extremely conservative and almost completely ignores anecdote and history, the history of positive drug use for positive reasons. The effects of psilocybin read like a "wish list" for the feelings that you would want a person to have who's withdrawing from a drug. And yet the Drug War has taught us to think of psilocybin as just another "drug," and so it's thought to be a mistake to use another "drug" while attempting to get off Effexor.

I already have experience with the drug and its motivational power. It works for me. It motivated me to start a diary for the first time in my life, which I am now keeping daily.

Besides, "the heart has its own reasons," as Pascal once said. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I will never get off Effexor unaided, no matter how many plans I try for yoga, or supplements, or jogging, or breathwork. Been there, done that FOR 65 YEARS!!! Yoga and breathwork are great -- and they are something I would be likely to do more of with the help of psilocybin -- but my whole life testifies against the idea that such "non-drug" activities will help me accomplish my goals by themselves.

I was surprised also to read that 1/365th decreases would possibly be going too fast! But if pauses are needed in the process, I can adjust the schedule so that there are a series of days in which the dose does not decrease. You say that these small increments may be hard to work with, but isn't that what compounding chemists are paid to do?

I have written hundreds of essays on this topic. I forget sometimes that the mainstream is still far behind the curve on this. But mainstream science is part of the problem these days. Mainstream scientists are letting progress proceed at a snail's pace by demanding that holistic drugs like psilocybin pass all sorts of safety standards while completely ignoring the fact that they have been used successfully for millennia. Mainstream science is great at coming up with reasons why we cannot use such drugs, but they are horrible when it comes to acknowledging drug benefits. That's why MDMA is still illegal. The FDA keeps finding tiny potential problems while completely ignoring the fact that MDMA brought peace, love and understanding to the British dance floors in the 1990s. For the FDA, that is no "benefit" -- and yet we let them do a cost/benefit analysis about MDMA ³ drug approval?

The assumption of westerners seems to be that psilocybin is just another drug and should be scorned -- or at least put on hold indefinitely while science picks it apart. I believe with Paul Stamets, however, that psilocybin is a game changer. It makes perfect sense to use its demonstrated micro-dosing power to vaccinate oneself psychologically for the process of withdrawal from Effexor. I'm going to try this, though if I'm going to get support, I think I will have to find a site where there is a greater appreciation of the transformative power of holistic medicines, and a refusal to consider them as "drugs" in the evil sense of that word.

Thanks for your ideas, though. The microdosing advice looks helpful, but we'll have to agree to disagree on much of the rest.

Author's Follow-up:

July 09, 2025

picture of clock metaphorically suggesting a follow-up

There is a certain class of brainwashed reader who will complain that I am giving medical advice by being honest about my own situation and viewpoint. This is how Drug Warriors censor free speech about drugs ⁴, by declaring that all talk of drug benefits constitutes medical advice. This is just an intolerant canard, however -- albeit I am the only philosopher who seems to have explicitly recognized it as such. This fallacious point of view is the corollary of another pernicious belief, namely, that self-medication ⁵ is a sin, that it is wrong to treat one's psychological state without the help of a materialist doctor. This latter conclusion, of course, depends on a truly metaphysical assumption about the ontological correctness of the philosophy of materialism ⁶; whereas, I maintain that it was always a category error to place materialists in charge of mind and mood medicine in the first place.

Speaking of "my own situation and viewpoint," I consider psilocybin just one of many "tools" in an enormous toolkit of psychoactive medicines that could help me get off of Effexor and stay off of it. One thing is certain, however: I could stop taking Effexor forever, beginning today, if we were to re-legalize all psychoactive medicines, including coca, opium ⁷ , and the many phenethylamines synthesized by Alexander Shulgin. Fortunately, some state governments have been so magnanimous as to let us use cannabis, expensively, albeit we citizens still cannot be trusted to grow the plant in our own house.

This is what irks me about websites like Surviving Antidepressants: such websites should be all about protesting drug prohibition, the disastrous social policy that shunted so many millions off onto Big Pharma ⁸ ⁹ 's dependence-causing psychoactive drugs in the first place. Instead, they take prohibition as a given and encourage us to get off of antidepressants ¹⁰ by jogging and meditating and sharing our stories with fellow pill-poppers -- providing, of course, that we never mention the inconvenient truth that by ending drug prohibition, we would render the S.A. website irrelevant. And that is a good thing, for almost all such websites are "selling something," at the end of the day, and can never be unequivocally happy about a world in which the individual is in the driver seat when it comes to their own mental states.

Getting Off Drugs

Notes:

1: How Drug Prohibition makes it impossible to get off of Effexor and other Big Pharma drugs DWP (up)
2: Paul Stamets The Joe Rogan Experience (podcast), 2017 (up)
3: How the Drug War killed Leah Betts DWP (up)
4: Speak now or forever hold your peace about drug prohibition DWP (up)
5: Restoring our Right to Self-Medication: how drug warriors work together with the medical establishment to prevent us from taking care of our own health DWP (up)
6: How materialists lend a veneer of science to the lies of the drug warriors DWP (up)
7: The Truth About Opium by William H. Brereton DWP (up)
8: Seife, Charles. 2012. “Is Drug Research Trustworthy?” Scientific American 307 (6): 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1212-56. (up)
9: LaMattina, John. n.d. “Why Is Biopharma Paying 75% of the FDA’s Drug Division Budget?” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2022/09/22/why-is-biopharma-paying-75-of-the-fdas-drug-division-budget/. (up)
10: Antidepressants and the War on Drugs DWP (up)

read more essays here

Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US

The New York Times gets it wrong again. Yes, kratom, like all drugs, has downsides. The problem is not kratom, it's drug prohibition which limits choice. Nor are young people the only stakeholders in the debate, as the Times always assumes.

Don't the Oregon prohibitionists realize that all the thousands of deaths from opiates is so much blood on their hands?

Here is a typical user report about a drug that the DEA tells us has no positive uses whatsoever: "There is a profoundness of meaning inherent in anything that moves." (reported in "Pikhal" by Alexander Shulgin)

The FDA uses reductive materialism to justify and normalize the views of Cortes and Pizarro with respect to entheogenic medicine.

This is why "rock stars" use drugs: not just for performance anxiety (which, BTW, is a completely UNDERSTANDABLE reason for drug use), but because they want to fully experience the music, even tho' they may be currently short on money and being hassled by creditors, etc.

In a free future, newspapers will have philosophers on their staffs to ensure that said papers are not inciting consequence-riddled hysteria through a biased coverage of drug-related mishaps.

The outlawing of coca and opium is a crime against humanity.

Many people take antidepressants believing their depression has a biochemical cause. Research does not support this belief. --Dr. Noam Shpancer, Psychology Today

Thomas Szasz was not an extremist when it comes to drugs. The extremists are those who feel that psychiatrists know more about our mind and mood than we do.

Ug! Fire bad! There were 4,731 fire-related deaths in America in 2023. Learn more at the Partnership for a Death Free America.

Click here to see All Tweets against the hateful War on Us

No cookies, no ads.

Unless otherwise indicated, no AI is used in the creation of site content. These essays represent the original ideas of their author and not the ideas that the author SHOULD have based on an algorithmic parsing of existing data. For more on this subject, consider the AI-related viewpoints to which the author subscribes as delineated in the New York Times opinion piece entitled "What 370,000 College Essays Tell Us About A.I.’s Effects on Creativity" by Rebecca Winthrop of the Brookings Institution.

The Partnership for a Death Free America is a proud sponsor of The Drug War Philosopher website @ abolishthedea.com.

tombstone for American Democracy, 1776-2024, RIP

(up)