How the Internet Archive Censors Free Speech about Drugs
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
February 28, 2025
Websites like the Internet Archive take the concept of "Kafkaesque" to a whole new level. They use algorithms written by anonymous techies to flag Drug War protest and remove it from the public discourse. Then they feel no compunction to discuss the issue with the authors of the banished material.
Three days ago, I reviewed a NIDA article about MDMA "abuse" by pointing out that NIDA was a political organization because it refuses to consider both the upsides of drug use and the downsides of prohibition. The Archive algorithms told me they had detected "spam" in my review and would not allow it to be published.
Spam?
I invite the reader to take a look at the review I had written (below) and tell me how anyone could call it spam. The Archive's algorithms were obviously written with a goal of suppressing free speech on the subject of drugs1. This suspicion is not allayed by the fact that the Archive has been ghosting me ever since they blocked my review. When I wrote them a few months ago about a technical problem that I was having with donating to them, they responded so quickly that my head was spinning. When I object about their censorship of free speech, they go silent for days.
I can understand that the Archive might not want to render their site controversial by allowing free speech on the subject of drugs, but if that is the case, they should not be soliciting reviews of their stored content.
Instead of discussing the censorship with me, the Archive chose the cowardly option of hiding behind algorithms to remove drug-war opponents from the public discourse.
Bill Gates once mused that "The Internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow." I think rather it is becoming the self-congratulatory echo chamber for bad ideas.
Banned
The following is my Banned Review of the NIDA article on the Internet Archive entitled "Research Report Series 2017 MDMA (Ecstasy) Abuse"2.
The government study of drugs is HUGELY biased. Their researchers ignore all the benefits of drugs as well as all the downsides of prohibition. Their only job is to demonize drug use by holding it to a safety standard that we apply to no other activity on planet Earth: not to free climbing, not to drag-racing, and certainly not to gun shooting or drinking alcohol. Speaking of alcohol, it kills 178,000 a year according to the CDC3, and yet the government invites us to fear drugs like Ecstasy, which have killed no one. The only deaths related to Ecstasy are those caused by the Drug War, which refuses to educate about safe use and to regulate product.
Ecstasy brought UNPRECEDENTED peace, love and understanding to the dance floors of Britain in the 1990s, but Drug Warriors do not like peace, love and understanding. And so Drug Warriors cracked down on the use of Ecstasy, after which violence SKYROCKETED at rave concerts as dancers switched to the anger-facilitating drug called alcohol, and concert organizers had to bring in special forces troops to keep the peace. Special forces4!
NIDA is just a propaganda arm of the U.S. government -- and will remain so until it recognizes the glaringly obvious benefits of drugs -- as well as the glaringly obvious downsides of prohibition, thanks to which America's inner cities have been turned into shooting galleries and the rule of law is now a joke in much of Latin America. 60,000 Mexicans have been "disappeared" thanks to the Drug War over the last 20 years5, and yet NIDA wants to outlaw a drug whose only crime is that it brought about unprecedented peace, love and understanding.
We don't need a National Institute on Drug Abuse. We need a National Institute on Drug USE -- an agency that recognizes the benefits of drugs and the downsides of prohibition.
It may be objected that I am expecting a lot from a presumably large organization such as the Internet Archive when I demand that it respond quickly to my complaints. The censorship of my article only happened a few days ago after all. But these are no ordinary complaints. These are complaints about my basic freedoms as an American citizen, viz my right to take part in public dialogue about issues vital to the republic. Nor did the Archive take long in ejecting me from the public forum. That was the eerie part. They did so instantaneously based on the implicit suspicions of a totally anonymous techie -- one who, like all Americans, was raised since childhood in the drug-hating ideology of the Drug War and grew up in a world in which the media never published any positive accounts of drug use. This was a world in which he was never told of the opium 6 use of Benjamin Franklin, nor of the DEA raid on Monticello 7 to confiscate the poppy plants of Benjamin's "dealer," Thomas Jefferson8, nor of the fact that psychedelic medicine inspired the very creation of the Hindu religion, nor that coca inspired the indigenous people of Peru.
And yet this anonymous techie, who is probably less than half my age, is going to decide on his own that my ideas are "beyond the pale" when it comes to drugs? To the contrary, the modern western idea of drugs is beyond the pale. This deadly hysterical approach that the west has adopted took shape beginning just over 100 years ago, whereas humankind has lived for tens of thousands of years without the wholesale demonization and criminalization of naturally occurring medicines. If anyone is beyond the pale it is the NIDA scientist who pretends that this unprecedented prohibition is a natural baseline for drug-related research, that drugs can fairly be seen to have no positive benefits. If anyone is beyond the pale it is the NIDA scientist who sees no downsides in drug prohibition, despite the fact that it has created violence and torture out of whole cloth and destroyed American liberties -- including free speech. How ironic when you consider that folks like Gates and Kurzweil saw such a rosy online world in which new ideas could thrive and grow. Instead, the Internet as made censorship efficient and given publishers a way to block unwelcome ideas and social criticism through the craven use of algorithms written by anonymous cowards.
Author's Follow-up: February 28, 2025
The Archive got back to me and, as expected, they said that the article had to cover specifics. But my whole point was that NIDA is not qualified to opine authoritatively on such topics as MDMA.
If Archive had posted an article by the NAZI party, would I not be allowed to point out why we should not be listening to such a source and rather explain why they are evil? I dismissed NIDA 9 on the grounds that they are evil insofar as their attitude toward drugs is anti-scientific, ignoring as it does both obvious drug benefits and obvious prohibition downsides, and that this anti-science has evil consequences in the real world.
In the 19th century, poets got together to use opium "in a series of magnificent quarterly carouses" (as per author Richard Middleton). When we outlaw drugs, we outlaw free expression.
Alcohol is a drug in liquid form. If drug warriors want to punish people who use drugs, they should start punishing themselves.
Mad in America publishes stories of folks who are disillusioned with antidepressants, but they won't publish mine, because I find mushrooms useful. They only want stories about cold turkey and jogging, or nutrition, or meditation.
Typical materialist protocol. Take all the "wonder" out of the drug and sell it as a one-size-fits all "reductionist" cure for anxiety. Notice that they refer to hallucinations and euphoria as "adverse effects." What next? Communion wine with the religion taken out of it?
"In consciousness dwells the wondrous, with it man attains the realm beyond the material, and the peyote tells us where to find it." --Antonin Arnaud
Almost all talk about the supposed intractability of things like addiction are exercises in make-believe. The pundits pretend that godsend medicines do not exist, thus normalizing prohibition by implying that it does not limit progress. It's a tacit form of collaboration.
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!"
There are endless creative ways to ward off addiction if all psychoactive medicines were at our disposal. The use of the drugs synthesized by Alexander Shulgin could combat the psychological downsides of withdrawal by providing strategic "as-needed" relief.
John Halpern wrote a book about opium, subtitled "the ancient flower that poisoned our world." What nonsense! Bad laws and ignorance poison our world, NOT FLOWERS!
If I have no right to mother nature's bounty, then I surely have no right to manmade guns. If hysterical fearmongering justifies the eradication of the Fourth Amendment, then the Second Amendment should go as well.
(up)