How National Geographic slanders the Inca people and their use of coca
an open letter to the National Geographic Society
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
May 21, 2024
Dear National Geographic Society:
Your 2013 article is biased against the Inca and their use of coca. The title reads "Inca Child Sacrifice Victims Were Drugged: Mummy hair reveals that young victims were heavy users of coca and alcohol" by Brian Handwerk1. The implication is that the sacrifice victims were made compliant and drowsy via coca. But that is not what coca does. It sharpens one's senses. Does your author think that one can be "drugged" by drinking coffee? And what does he mean by "heavy users of coca"? The Inca WERE heavy users of coca, and the child was at the age of maturity, when they are allowed to chew their first quid. Sure, they are "heavy users" by prudish American standards, but not by Inca standards.
You also defame coca in an article entitled: "Coca: A Blessing and a Curse."2 That's a political statement on your part, not fact. Coca is not a curse, prohibition is the curse! It has consigned coca growers to a life of poverty and caused a civil war in Mexico.
Author's Follow-up: May 21, 2024
I submitted the above comment to the National Geographic Society today on their contact page3. The site returned the message "YOUR CASE WAS CREATED. We'll get back to you soon." Past experience suggests that they won't actually do that, but watch this space for updates just in case the moon should indeed turn blue.
Author's Follow-up: June 14, 2024
Surprise! Nat Geo has not gotten back to me yet. Only fancy!
Cocaine can be used wisely, believe it or not. You have been taught otherwise by a lifetime of censorship -- and by an FDA which dogmatically ignores all positive aspects of drug use, including increased communicative skill and endurance.
Check out the conversations that I have had so far with the movers and shakers in the drug-war game -- or rather that I have TRIED to have. Actually, most of these people have failed to respond to my calls to parlay, but that need not stop you from reading MY side of these would-be chats.
I used to be surprised at this reticence on the part of modern drug-war pundits, until I realized that most of them are materialists. That is, most of them believe in (or claim to believe in) the psychiatric pill mill. If they happen to praise psychedelic drugs as a godsend for the depressed, they will yet tell us that such substances are only for those whose finicky body chemistries fail to respond appropriately to SSRIs and SNRIs. The fact is, however, there are thousands of medicines out there that can help with psychological issues -- and this is based on simple psychological common sense. But materialist scientists ignore common sense. That's why Dr. Robert Glatter wrote an article in Forbes magazine wondering if laughing gas could help the depressed.
As a lifelong depressive, I am embarrassed for Robert, that he has to even ask such a question. Of course laughing gas could help. Not only is laughter "the best medicine," as Readers Digest has told us for years, but looking forward to laughing is beneficial too. But materialist scientists ignore anecdote and history and tell us that THEY will be the judge of psychoactive medicines, thank you very much. And they will NOT judge such medicines by asking folks like myself if they work but rather by looking under a microscope to see if they work in the biochemical way that materialists expect.
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.
Oregon's drug policy is incoherent and cruel. The rich and healthy spend $4,000 a week on psilocybin. The poor and chemically dependent are thrown in jail, unless they're on SSRIs, in which case they're congratulated for "taking their meds."
Many articles in science mags need this disclaimer: "Author has declined to consider the insights gained from drug-induced states on this topic out of fealty to Christian Science orthodoxy." They don't do this because they know readers already assume that drugs will be ignored.
The DEA is a Schedule I agency. It has no known positive uses and is known to cause death and destruction.
That's another problem with "following the science." Science downplays personal testimony as subjective. But psychoactive experiences are all ABOUT subjectivity. With such drugs, users are not widgets susceptible to the one-size-fits-all pills of reductionism.
Health is not a quality, it's a balance. To decide legality based on 'health' grounds thus opens a Pandora's box of different points of view.
According to Donald Trump's view of life, Jesus Christ was a chump. We should hate our enemies, not love them.
I might as well say that no one can ever be taught to ride a horse safely. I would argue as follows: "Look at Christopher Reeves. He was a responsible and knowledgeable equestrian. But he couldn't handle horses. The fact is, NO ONE can handle horses!"
If anyone manages to die during an ayahuasca ceremony, it is considered a knockdown argument against "drugs." If anyone dies during a hunting club get-together, it is considered the victim's own damn fault. The Drug War is the triumph of hypocritical idiocy.
The Drug War is one big entrapment scheme for poor minorities. Prohibition creates an economy that hugely incentivizes drug dealing, and when the poor fall for the bait, the prohibitionists rush in to arrest them and remove them from the voting rolls.
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, How National Geographic slanders the Inca people and their use of coca: an open letter to the National Geographic Society, published on May 21, 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)