How organizations like Mad in America normalize drug prohibition
An open Letter to Robert Whitaker
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
April 27, 2026
Any regular reader of this site -- all two of them, in fact -- will know that I am constantly complaining about the failure of movers-and-shakers in the mainstream world to engage with the endless philosophical issues that I raise in my essays. But I have recently discovered that there are at least two things worse than being ghosted on this subject, and that is being told, 1, that one has no standing on these issues, that board-certified healthcare professionals and academics are the real experts, and 2, that one is not raising particularly compelling arguments in the first place.
This is the reception that my article1 about assisted suicide for the depressed met with at Mad In America2, a website and organization devoted to helping the depressed to push back against the psychiatric pill mill. They (i.e., Robert Whitaker and staff) claim that I am not an objective source. Apparently Claire Brosseau3 must die because I do not sound objective when I point out that there are drugs that could make her want to live. It's like I have just run into the fire brigade and warned them of a fire down the street and been ignored because I was shouting and therefore not viewing the world rationally. Sometimes there are reasons to shout; sometimes there is no time to wait for a disinterested party to view the situation godlike from some ivory tower or other.
Besides, I wasn't shouting in said article, though I was certainly writing passionately, partly because I care about the Claire Brosseaus of the world, and partly because, if state-assisted suicide is right for Claire, then it's right for myself as well, since we are both chronic depressives for which the "miracle" drugs of Big Pharma did not work. When psychiatrists and pundits sign off on Claire's right to assisted suicide, they are essentially inviting me to "end it all" as well. But unlike Claire, I am not so willing to normalize drug prohibition that I will go to my grave rather than hold it accountable for its role in depressing me in the first place. I will hold drug prohibition responsible for the evils that it causes, even if no one else will.
But I should not be surprised that Robert Whitaker would not immediately grasp the relevance of drug prohibition to the debate over assisted suicide for the depressed. He does not even recognize the relevance of drug prohibition to his own organization. Mad in America is all about the shortcomings of the psychiatric pill mill, and yet the pill mill owes its very existence to drug prohibition, which gave a monopoly to Big Pharma on the creation and sale of mind and mood medicine. If Robert's goal is to get people off of Big Pharma meds, his organization should be all about ending drug prohibition in the name of healthcare freedom. Instead, he seems to consider drug prohibition as a niche issue, meriting, perhaps, an occasional post by a cautious and well-respected academic suggesting that we should maybe no longer arrest people for sourcing drugs from a non-doctor but rather send them to re-education camps where they can learn the error of their ways. And so, like the organizer of almost every other social justice organization in the country, Robert refuses to hold drug prohibition publicly responsible for the evil that it causes.
This is how Robert -- like almost everybody else in the social justice movement -- helps to normalize drug prohibition. Their silence on the topic leaves the impression that there are no downsides to drug prohibition, from which it follows in the public mind that there need not be any particular hurry to end it.
Key Takeaways:
The psychiatric pill mill would not exist but for drug prohibition.
Mad in America refuses to hold drug prohibition responsible for the problems that it causes.
Any organization that really had the interests of the depressed at heart would be fighting first and foremost for our right to use Mother Nature's medicines. Everything else is a side show.
We have to deny the FDA the right to judge psychoactive medicines in the first place. Their materialist outlook obliges them to ignore all obvious benefits. When they nix drugs like MDMA, they nix compassion and love.
Rather than protesting prohibition as a crackdown on academic freedom, today's scientists are collaborating with the drug war by promoting shock therapy and SSRIs, thereby profiting from the monopoly that the drug war gives them in selling mind and mood medicine.
Americans are far more fearful of psychoactive drugs than is warranted by either anecdote or history. We require 100% safety before we will re-legalize any "drug" -- which is a safety standard that we do not enforce for any other risky activity on earth.
In "Four Good Days" the pompous white-coated doctor ignores the entire formulary of mother nature and instead throws the young heroin user on a cot for 3 days of cold turkey and a shot of Naltrexone: price tag $3,000.
Almost all of today's magazine articles about human psychology should come with the following disclaimer:
"This article was written from the standpoint of Drug War ideology, which holds that outlawed substances can have no beneficial uses whatsoever."
The "acceptable risk" for psychoactive drugs can only be decided by the user, based on what they prioritize in life. Science just assumes that all users should want to live forever, self-fulfilled or not.
We should no more arrest drug users than we arrest people for climbing sheer rock faces or for driving a car.
In the 19th century, author Richard Middleton wrote how poets would get together to use opium "in a series of magnificent quarterly carouses."
Brits have a right to die, but they do not have the right to use drugs that might make them want to live. Bad policy is indicated by absurd outcomes, and this is but one of the many absurd outcomes that the policy of prohibition foists upon the world.
(up)