How the Myth of Mental Illness supports the war on drugs
and leads to the preventable suicides of our loved ones
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
March 9, 2025
t is a commonplace to say that Americans believe in science, almost as a kind of replacement for the God that they have largely abandoned. But this is not exactly true. What Americans really believe in is a kind of folk science based on what flatters them personally, but which appears to be true science because scientists have no interest in undeceiving them on this subject: so much so, that many of the less profound thinkers among the scientists themselves have adopted the folk beliefs themselves. This folk science consists of the notion that mind and mood problems are identical in kind to heart and liver problems, that such problems are literally illnesses, rather than just figuratively so. Despite Thomas Szasz's courageous virtual one-man crusade against this consequence-laden idea back in the 20th century, this belief has staying power, and the reason is obvious. It persists because Americans see no alternative to this world view except to 'blame' the folks with 'mental health' problems for their own condition. Nevertheless, the myth of mental illness is clearly that -- a myth -- no matter how laudable the reason for its acceptance as fact among the hoi polloi.
Why is it wrong? Well, as Whitehead said, we judge a philosophy wrong because it leads to 'absurdum,' and the myth of mental illness has led to the mother of all absurdities: the fact that modern scientists claim to see no positive uses for the kinds of substances that have inspired entire religions in the past. Why not? Merely because they can find no quantifiable evidence that such efficacy exists. Modern scientists are behaviorists when it comes to human psychology, and behaviorists believe that all that matters is quantifiable data. They do not care that the use of psychedelics inspired the Hindu religion, nor that Ecstasy brought together young people of all ethnicities in unprecedented harmony on the dance floors of Britain in the 1990s. Materialists want to find out if such drugs 'really' work -- i.e., by ignoring all common sense and obvious facts whatsoever. That is a metaphysical quest if there ever was one, a task befitting a materialist Don Quixote and not a family member who is genuinely interested in the well-being of a depressed loved one.
This paradigm of 'mental illness' is hugely relevant to the Drug War because it implies that materialist doctors - the same materialist doctors who treat our heart and liver problems - are the same doctors who are qualified to treat our mental conditions. This in turn implies that we are all biochemical widgets when it comes to mental suffering; we are all amenable to one-size-fits-all cures from medical science. And this should sound familiar, because it is the assumption upon which today's psychiatric pill mill is based. This materialist ideology also helps scientists sign off on Drug War prohibitions by convincing them that 'cures' for mind and mood issues are to be found under a microscope, from which it follows that glaringly obvious benefits of drug use can be completely ignored. We don't ask heart patients how the doctor should treat their heart conditions, after all: why should we ask 'mental health' patients what works for them personally? By thus identifying mind and mood issues as pathological, we imply that the 'patient's' only job is to listen to their doctor. You say that laughing gas makes the chronic depressed laugh and gives them something to look forward to? 'So what?' cries the folk scientist who believes in the existence of literal mental illnesses. 'Doctors are the experts on mind and mood medicine,' they say, 'and the benefits of outlawed drugs have yet to be established with the quantitative data that we demand from the study of actual illnesses.'
This is a very convenient result for the powers-that-be because it permits doctors to 'sign off' on the outrageous lie of the DEA that psychoactive medicines have no known positive uses whatsoever, this despite the fact that both history and modern anecdote say otherwise, not to mention psychological common sense. There are, in fact, endless common-sense ways to leverage the power of psychoactive medicines to improve mind and mood, ways limited only by the power of our imaginations as living, breathing human beings. But we have been taught to ignore the very possibility of doing so thanks to drug-war fearmongering, which teaches us to apply a safety standard to drug use that we apply to no other risky activity on earth - not to mountain climbing, not to drag-racing, not to gun shooting, and certainly not to liquor consumption. We are told that one victim of 'drugs' is one victim too many - whereas 178,000 Americans die yearly from alcohol and the Drug Warrior never raises an eyelash.
And so we outlaw drugs in an effort to reduce the victim rate to zero, always failing to realize that we are thereby causing far more deaths than we are preventing. It's just that our laws outsource the deaths to minorities and foreigners: to minorities thanks to the inner-city drug gangs that our laws have incentivized and to foreigners thanks to the drug cartels that our policies have created out of whole cloth: gangs which have destroyed the rule of law in Latin America and caused 60,000 'disappearances' in Mexico alone over the last two decades. (I say nothing here of the stateside deaths caused by drug prohibition, which refuses to teach safe use, meanwhile failing to regulate product, thanks to which users can die of corrupted product or of unintentional overdoses - like the thousands of daily drug deaths in cities around the country, for which Drug Warriors have blood on their hands but about which they remain in an aggressive state of denial, blaming drugs as usual for the problems that they themselves are causing with their drug prohibitions.)
If Americans are concerned about blaming the victim, then they should stop using the term 'patient' at all, which is itself a stigmatizing and disempowering epithet. The word 'patient' would, indeed, be discarded if we followed my plan of replacing today's psychiatrist with what I call a 'pharmacologically savvy empath,' a sort of modern shaman whom literally anyone could visit for the purposes of improving their mental and emotional life, someone who has actually used the kinds of drugs about which he or she gives advice. The empath in question would be familiar with all psychoactive drugs available, and not just their pharmacological makeup either, but also their historic and anecdotal usage. They would have a raft of psychologically common-sense ideas regarding the wise leveraging of such substances on behalf of the goals of their client - their client, mind, and not their patient. There would be no stigma for anybody involved because everyone who visited these modern western shaman would be treated for the same thing: a desire to improve their mind and mood.
As Szasz himself noted, there are conditions that may justifiably be called 'mental illness,' ones in which specific neuronal damage results directly in maladaptive behavior, but to claim that sadness in general is a mental illness is to adopt a hyper materialist view of the world, one in which we are all predetermined widgets amenable to one-size-fits-all cures regardless of our own extraordinarily unique and complex personal psychology. We do not need a materialist doctor in most cases of mental and emotional suffering: we need a living, breathing human being who can empathize with our situation and whose pharmacopoeia has not been almost entirely censored by racist politicians who do not know psilocybin from ibogaine, nor coca from opium -- and who, in any case, are blind to all psychological common sense regarding motivation, anticipation and the desire for self-actualization in life.
This is not to say that everyone needs 'drugs,' but we do not limit a physical doctor's pharmacopoeia just because everybody does not need aspirin. Nor should we limit the shaman's pharmacopoeia because not everyone needs ayahuasca. Nor should anyone rule 'drugs' out of hand entirely, unless, perhaps, they believe in the tenets of Christian Science, the drug-hating religion founded by Mary Baker-Eddy. For some of the drugs we are talking about here can inspire a new-found love of nature and music - or new-found compassion for others, etc. - and such potential improvements should not be ruled out in advance by anyone, no matter how tempted they might have been in the past to hop on a moral high horse and cavil against drug use in general, as if it ever even made sense to talk about 'drug use' in the abstract, as if a single coca leaf were equivalent to a high-dose capsule containing fentanyl or that the daily smoking of an opium pipe were the same as the hourly 'shooting up' of heroin or that a spoonful of sugar, for that matter, is the same as five ounces of cacao.
Speaking of which, here's a question that no Drug Warrior has ever answered to my satisfaction: 'Why is it highly criminal for me to engage in the time-honored practice of smoking an opium pipe nightly, while it is my medical duty to take a series of Big Pharma antidepressants every single day of my life?'
Nor am I implying here that these shaman should be the gatekeepers to beneficial drug use; I see them rather as a resource in a free world for informed decision making about using - or not using - any specific substance on the planet. For in the world that I envision, stigma would be attached only to unwise drug use, and never to drug use in general. Imagine, turning to folks who actually know the stuff that really MATTERS when it comes to drugs and not basing our views about drug use on the fearmongering of racist demagogue politicians.
The first step toward such sanity is jettisoning the belief in mental illness. That belief fosters the kind of inhumane behaviorism that deprives scientists of all common sense. This in turn is the proof that the mental illness myth is wrong: the very fact that it turns scientists into dogmatic idiots. It turns them into the emotionally purblind Dr. Spock of Star Trek when it comes to mood-related complaints, as in the case of materialist Dr. Robert Glatter, who wrote that infamous article in Forbes magazine in 2021 in which he questioned the ability of laughing gas to help the depressed. Laughing gas, for God's sake! Even Readers Digest magazine knows that laughter is the best medicine. Not only would laughing gas help the depressed in many an imaginable protocol, but in a sane world, the suicidal would be given laughing gas kits in the same way as we give epi pens to those individuals who are subject to severe allergic reactions. For in a sane world we would all agree that it was better for them to use laughing gas than to commit suicide. Imagine that! But in our world, we actually outlaw laughing gas for the depressed - and yet we are more than happy to fry their brains with electroshock therapy should they become TOO depressed!!! This is insanity, and until Americans recognize it as such, they will continue to support the myth of mental illness and the inhumane behaviorism for which it stands.
Incidentally, I was inspired to write this essay after visiting a relative yesterday and hearing some irritating background chatter about supposed 'mental illness' in our extended family. I hesitated, at first, to write about that experience lest this essay should 'get back' to the individuals concerned and cause hard feelings. But then I reflected that my essays are so thoroughly ignored by Google that I can reference such things without fear of my relatives finding out. Besides, maybe I should be honest with them, in any case.
So then, these two family members were discussing the fact that a relative of ours had recently visited an emergency room for severe depression. Although I do not have anything close to a photographic memory, I can give you a faithful account of the essence of their discussion on this topic. First, they both believed that the family member had done the right thing. This, of course, was true, but only because going to the emergency room to see materialist doctors was about the only option she had in our society. It was further agreed that this severely depressed relative was on the road to recovery now that she had gone to the true church of materialist science. She would surely now be put on the right medications and should they not work, she would be put on still other medications until her mental illness had been cured. Praise God. Both relatives complained about the fact that such conditions were still considered to involve stigma and maintained that we should think of such a condition in the same way that we think about cancer or migraine headache: it was a biochemical condition that was purely physical in origin and for which materialist doctors were the experts. Such were the feel-good 'mental health' bromides being batted about by this duo of dueling materialists that I was overhearing against my will from an adjoining room.
Now, I have just as much concern for this troubled relative as the duo that I mention, but it is absurd to think that physical science has the answers to her sadness, to the sadness caused by the human condition. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, the scientific community has been all too willing to accept the myth of mental illness because they can then engage in disease-mongering and thereby set up emotionally purblind materialists as the highly remunerated experts when it comes to each and every one of these newly minted illnesses. You say a mother is depressed after childbirth? I say she can be cheered up in a trice by the common-sense use of medicines that elate and inspire. But the materialist says, 'No way! She must be treated for a specific illness called Postpartum Depression, one for which drugs that simply elate and inspire can do absolutely nothing at all.' That's just treating the symptoms, don't you see? The implication here is that a materialist reductive cure will fix the 'real' problem -- which is an ideological conclusion, however, not a scientific one. It is a logically fallacious conclusion insofar as it assumes the correctness of the materialist approach to mood medicine rather than proving it.
Besides, the illness approach explains too much. It implies that merely to exist is to be ill -- which renders illness so commonplace as to deny the term all meaning.
This is an outrageous abandonment of common sense. And it is proof that the mental illness myth is wrong. It forces us not only to be stupid when it comes to the depressed - but it forces us to be CRUEL to them as well, and that with malice aforethought. For we know perfectly well that we could cheer up our depressed relatives 'in a trice' with a wide variety of psychoactive medicines, but we would rather risk that they commit suicide than to let them use such drugs. But such medicine is outlawed, you say! True, but that does not prevent us from at least protesting that fact, loudly and clearly, on behalf of our suicidal relatives. Every new case of so-called postpartum depression or seasonal affective disorder should bring about new howls of protest against the prohibitionists: but by referring such conditions to physical illness, we give an enormous mulligan to the Drug War, which outlaws everything that really works for depression!
We are shirking our responsibility to the severely depressed when we pretend that this purblind physical science has the effective and immediate answers that our suicidal relatives so desperately require. They need real decisive answers now, not potential answers that might show up to some extent in eight to ten months if we're lucky. They require the wise and informed use of some portion of the vast psychoactive pharmacopoeia that we have been encouraged to outlaw by the fearmongering of racist politicians, and we should be pointing out this fact, loudly and clearly. Instead, those who believe in the myth of mental illness are living in a make-believe world: a world in which God is in his heaven and the doctor is in his emergency room and everything is fine with the world. It's a world in which depressed loved ones come in second to the substance demonizing ideology of the War on Drugs.
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 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."
We need to push back against the very idea that the FDA is qualified to tell us what works when it comes to psychoactive medicines. Users know these things work. That's what counts. The rest is academic foot dragging.
The Drug War brought guns to the "hoods," thereby
incentivizing violence in the name of enormous profits. Any site featuring victims of gun violence should therefore be rebranded as a site featuring victims of the drug war. Otherwise, many people don't make the connection.
It's an enigma: If I beat my depression by smoking opium nightly, I am a drug scumbag subject to immediate arrest. But if I do NOT "take my meds" every day of my life, I am a bad patient.
Most psychoactive substance use can be judged as recreational OR medicinal OR both. The judgements are not just determined by the circumstances of use, either, but also by the biases of those doing the judging.
All the problems that folks associate with drugs are caused by prohibition. Thousands were not dying on the streets when opioids were legal in America. It took prohibition to bring that about.
The DEA outlawed MDMA in 1985, thereby depriving soldiers of a godsend treatment for PTSD. Apparently, the DEA staff slept well at night in the early 2000s as American soldiers were having their lives destroyed by IEDs.
Americans think that fighting drugs is more important than freedom. We have already given up on the fourth amendment. Nor is the right to religion honored for those who believe in indigenous medicines. Pols are now trying to end free speech about drugs as well.
It's because of such reductive pseudoscience that America will allow us to shock the brains of the depressed but won't allow us to let them use the plant medicines that grow at their feet.
The Cabinet of Caligari ('62) ends with a shameless display of psychiatric triumphalism. Happy shock therapy patients waltz freely about a mansion in which the "sick" protagonist has just been "cured" by tranquilizers and psychoanalysis. Did Robert Bloch believe his own script?
Even fans of sacred medicine have been brainwashed to believe that we do not know if such drugs "really" work: they want microscopic proof. But that's a western bias, used strategically by drug warriors to make the psychotropic drug approval process as glacial as possible.
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 the Myth of Mental Illness supports the war on drugs: and leads to the preventable suicides of our loved ones, published on March 9, 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)
t is a commonplace to say that Americans believe in science, almost as a kind of replacement for the God that they have largely abandoned. But this is not exactly true. What Americans really believe in is a kind of folk science based on what flatters them personally, but which appears to be true science because scientists have no interest in undeceiving them on this subject: so much so, that many of the less profound thinkers among the scientists themselves have adopted the folk beliefs themselves. This folk science consists of the notion that mind and mood problems are identical in kind to heart and liver problems, that such problems are literally illnesses, rather than just figuratively so. Despite Thomas Szasz's courageous virtual one-man crusade against this consequence-laden idea back in the 20th century, this belief has staying power, and the reason is obvious. It persists because Americans see no alternative to this world view except to 'blame' the folks with 'mental health' problems for their own condition. Nevertheless, the myth of mental illness is clearly that -- a myth -- no matter how laudable the reason for its acceptance as fact among the hoi polloi.
You have been reading an article entitled, How the Myth of Mental Illness supports the war on drugs: and leads to the preventable suicides of our loved ones, published on March 9, 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)
