computer screen with words DRUG WAR BLOG bird icon for twitter bird icon for twitter


If this be reason, let us make the least of it!

an essay on the philosophy of George Santayana

by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher



December 30, 2024



2025 update



Some thoughts on Santayana's "Life of Reason.1"

I would first observe that human beings do not usually use reason to guide their lives. The long-term support for the logically fallacious Drug War, even by academics, is one of the best proofs of that statement. I find, moreover, that those who make a big show of using "Reason" are the ones to watch out for. They are the intolerant and combatant materialists of today who come to seemingly firm and concrete conclusions about the world, telling us that "this is so, according to science!" blissfully unaware that their "knowledge" is based on metaphysical assumptions, assumptions that can be rationally gainsaid2.

What assumptions? In our times, the "rationalist" typically assumes the veracity and sufficiency of reductive materialist principles, not just in the material realm but in the psychological and spiritual realm as well3 4 5. It is this presumption that we have to thank for the psychiatric pill mill6 and the fact that drug researchers today cannot see any beneficial uses for drugs like MDMA and laughing gas, even though common sense, history and anecdote cry out that these drugs have obvious positive uses7.

This is not to disparage reason itself, but to raise an important qualification: namely, that what seems reasonable to one class of society can often be found to depend for its supposed rationality on highly debatable premises, indeed.

Nor am I sure that I want to live in a world wherein reason holds sway, at least not in the utopian manner that Santayana envisions in the following excerpt:

"If the passions arose in season, if perception fed only on those things which action should be adjusted to, turning them, while action proceeded, into the substance of ideas—then all conduct would be voluntary and enlightened, all speculation would be practical, all perceptions beautiful, and all operations arts. The Life of Reason would then be universal.8"


It sounds like a paradise for Dr. Spock of Star Trek, or for a timid and nervous conservative who has never learned how to dance. ("Most dances," quoth Santyana, "are somewhat ridiculous," which sounds to me like sour grapes.)

But the notion that emotions could ever be tamed by reason seems naïve, to put it mildly. And the idea that they should be seems debatable. It is psychological common sense that the experience of Dionysian ecstasy can have psychological benefits for the depressed and anxious. Moreover, the west itself had a history of cultivating ecstatic states for the purposes of mystical enlightenment. The psychedelic-fueled Eleusinian Mysteries lasted for almost 2,000 consecutive years and inspired western thinkers such as Cicero, Plato and Aristotle. As that latter philosopher reported, initiates came to the rites to experience truths, to feel them, not to "learn" them in any ratiocinative sense of that word.

And Santayana's insistence that "all speculation would be practical" is anti-scientific and anti-progress. It preemptively disallows our philosophical study of the worlds that William James encountered under the influence of laughing gas, or that indigenous people have encountered for ages with the help of plant-based psychedelic medicines. We cannot discuss these worlds with regard to utility or by correlating them with known things, as Santayana would have us do -- since these are entirely new worlds, at least to we intoxiphobic westerners. It is our job, as James claimed, to study these worlds, not to dismiss them a priori as unimportant and irrational9.

And yet Santayana says otherwise:

"We should not wish to know 'things in themselves.' What it concerns us to know about them is merely the service or injury they are able to do us, and in what fashion they can affect our lives.10"


Such a world view sounds like a science stopper to me. It is certainly a philosophy stopper. It sounds like the utterance of a closed-minded utilitarian.

Santayana here reminds me of "that guy" who will fix your plumbing leak in a heartbeat and will talk to you nonstop about socket wrenches, but if you talk to him about Socratic forms, his eyes will glaze over in a trice. He'll tell you, in effect, "Yes, but this has nothing to do with the price of tea in China!" Or, in more brutal terms: "Yes, but where's the money?! Is this stuff going to affect my bank account or not? If not, then why are you wasting my time?!"

Nor are Socratic forms dead. They may have a new relevance in helping us understand the counterintuitive world of quantum physics, as Bernardo Kastrup explains in his recent book on the metaphysics of the philosopher Schopenhauer11.

And what about that Reason, which Santayana tells us "is universal in its outlook and in its sympathies"? How does that claim square with William James' insights based on his use of laughing gas?

"Our normal waking consciousness," wrote James, "rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different.12"

I have no doubt that clever philosophers could square Santayana's views with that of James, perhaps by distinguishing rational consciousness from Reason, but I am concerned here with the tendencies of Santayana's utilitarian focus to foster an unwarranted self-satisfaction in modern self-proclaimed "rationalists." The idea that reason should call the shots when it comes to mood and mentation has given rise to the hateful doctrine of behaviorism in the field of psychology. This passion-free viewpoint has blinded modern scientists to a myriad of obvious benefits to the use of substances that we call (or rather denigrate as) "drugs"13.

Behaviorism aside, the real experts on psychoactive drugs are empathic individuals who have used them themselves and can advise on drug use that would further the life goals of a specific living, breathing human being14. There is no role for rationalists here who purposefully remove all feelings from their moral calculus and pretentiously try to tell us what we should need in order to feel happy according to their Excel charts, never bothering to ask us about our goals in life and the amount of risk that we're willing to take in order to attain them.

This behaviorism renders scientists stupid. It is why materialists can tell us that laughing gas has no therapeutic uses, even though common sense screams out otherwise15. In fact, laughing gas kits should be made available to the suicidal as we make Epi pens available to those with potentially deadly allergies. Instead, the FDA is attempting to treat the substance like any other drug, which is a slap in the face to the legacy of William James, not to mention to academic freedom itself16.

Like many of the drugs that we have outlawed, laughing gas conduces to a spiritual understanding of the world in the user. And so the disdain for altered states that is implicit in Santayana's utilitarian philosophy is a very "convenient" disdain, indeed. It prevents the professed atheist from ever having to experience the world in a way that might alter his jealously circumscribed vision of reality.

The praise of reason in itself is not folly, of course. There are rational reasons why one should prefer Mahler's 3rd Symphony to "Push It" by Salt n Pepa. And a lack of reason has certainly sent some cultures into quirky dead-ends, as in the case of the cargo cults of the Pacific17. But even if there were a thousand such benighted cultures, they would pose no existential threat to humanity. Their people still love, laugh and cry like the rest of us.

Today's existential threats come from countries that consider themselves to be highly rational. They are the ones who claim to have placed Reason on a throne. The Nazis of World War II prided themselves on their rationality and efficiency. And the rational scientists of Russia and the United States have placed the entire world under a nuclear Sword of Damocles, one which may yet bring the world itself to an end -- or at least force it to reboot and start from scratch.

This is why feeling must come first in any comprehensive philosophy of life. It must have precedence over utility-oriented reason. And because feelings of mistrust and fear abound in the annals of human history, the true philosopher will have learned from this past. He or she will advocate the strategic use of entheogenic medicines to eradicate this cancer from the suffering patient, that species to whom we somewhat ironically refer as Homo sapiens. The fact that few philosophers make this suggestion is easy to understand, however. Drug war ideology has taught us from childhood that substances we have labeled as "drugs" can have no positive uses for anybody, anywhere, ever. We are taught to consider them as evil in and of themselves. This, of course, is sheer superstition. But even if philosophers have risen above the omnipresent censorship to think otherwise, they are not in a hurry to say so since being honest on this topic entails great risk to reputation and career.

This is not to say that I dismiss Santayana's work out of hand. I do, however, find his disdain for metaphysics to be disturbing and short-sighted. As William James reports, the nature of human consciousness is far from understood and requires informed speculation, speculation informed by our experiences in altered states. Nor are the ultimate answers that we find on this subject likely to align with any common sense notion that we could deduce from the daily humdrum world around us to which Santayana would seem to limit us. Quantum physics tells us that the world we live in is very odd indeed18. In the words of quantum pioneer Werner Heisenberg, "Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.19"

Finally, as suggested above, Santayana's focus on utilitarian motivation in Reason has to be considered in light of world history. In the last one hundred years, in particular, the west has exploited South American lands in the name of utility, running roughshod over the will of the inhabitants. We have criminalized their religion and the plant teachers that they used in sacred rituals. We have told them that their gods were phony and had them adopt Christianity, often on pain of death. And who were those inhabitants over which we rational people triumphed? They were the very people whom Santayana dismisses as 'savages,' a pejorative term that he uses no less than 21 times in his books on "The Life of Reason."

To paraphrase Patrick Henry,

"If this be reason, let us make the least of it!"



Author's Follow-up: December 31, 2024

picture of clock metaphorically suggesting a follow-up





If this critique seems harsh, I would argue that it is no harsher than Santayana is toward the emotive world of "savages." Santayana's arguments are often subtle, however, so it would be wrong to dismiss him wholesale. I have no doubt that continued reading will provide me with valuable insights, notwithstanding the mischievous tendencies of his work as a whole, at least when read in this scientistic age of ours, governed as it is by behaviorist presumptions and technological triumphalism.

--

I was listening to Mahler's 3rd Symphony yesterday before publishing this essay and asking myself in what way we might consider it to be rationally superior to "Push It" by Salt n Pepa. In one sense, I think the answer is rather straightforward.

Like many listeners, when I first heard Mahler, I was confronted by a bunch of sounds, or rather noise. It took education, both musical and otherwise, combined with a greater experience of life, for me to finally begin to "get" Mahler's music, to finally begin identifying the many leitmotifs as they were presented and morphed throughout the work and understanding how they related to the composition as a whole.

This is basically proof in itself of the work's rational superiority for me since its enjoyment clearly requires the activation of more neuronal connections than does the work of a top-10 hit. This increased neuronal connectivity is, in turn, a positive good insofar as it not only allows one to appreciate Mahler's music, but it conduces to more flexible thinking and creativity in general.

And so when people say that they don't enjoy Shakespeare or Mahler, I think they are saying more about themselves than they might imagine. Nor am I getting on an esthetic high-horse here. I am often not in the mood for either Mahler or Shakespeare, but whenever I fail to appreciate them, I attribute that shortcoming to myself: to a lack of education and/or experience on my part, and/or the fact that I am currently distracted by mundane concerns.

This is why I refrain from dismissing Santayana wholesale, lest I thereby be unwittingly advertising my own neuronal shortcomings. I have instead focused on those problems with Santayana's philosophy that I can clearly deduce from the philosopher's own words, most notably his premature disdain for metaphysics and his tendency to dismiss the emotive life as "savage."

--

I might add that people make the same mistake when it comes to psychedelic medicine. Some people do not have profound experiences under the influence -- at least on some particular substances at some particular doses. And they are sometimes inclined to blame this on the substances themselves. But they may be betraying their own lack of "education," in the broad sense of that word, with such complaints. Set and setting does matter, and part of the setting includes one's education level and inherent neuronal capacities. So rather than complaining about their inabilities in this quarter, they should better do some soul searching and find how they can approach the experience with a better mindset.

That said, psychedelics can do some of the heavy lifting. But you've got to meet them halfway. This is true of drugs in general. Both folks who misuse them and folks who diss them tend to base their judgment on uninformed use. There is a big difference between sitting down to smoke opium with an open mind, humbly seeking creative enlightenment, and popping an oxy pill with the sole intention of "getting high," at least in so far as "getting high" means letting the drug do all the work. Attitude, intention, education level, and life experience all matter.




Author's Follow-up: January 7, 2025

picture of clock metaphorically suggesting a follow-up


I do not want to leave the impression that there is something wrong with enjoying soul music. To the contrary, a failure to be able to enjoy soul music might indicate a shortcoming in the emotive department. That failure could in turn say something about one's cultural provincialism.

As a white teenager in the seventies, I was a big fan of soul music -- including much of the music that never made it to pop charts -- falsetto ballads like "Dedicate My Life" by the Young Hearts and deep cuts from albums by Labelle. I kept my tastes to myself, however, because I knew that most white Euro-Americans were uncomfortable with the degree of feeling expressed in these songs. And trust me, those who ridiculed my preferences were not all rational geniuses: they simply had been brought up in a culture with a different esthetic, one wherein strong expressions of emotion were discouraged.

Schopenhauer






Schopenhauer synthesizes the ideas of Immanuel Kant and Plato with the philosophy of eastern religions, according to which we human beings are unable to perceive Reality writ large. This limitation, however, which both Schopenhauer and Kant suggest applies to all human beings as such, may actually only apply to "sober" individuals, as William James was to point out a decade after Schopenhauer's death. James realized that the strategic use of drugs that provide self-transcendence can help one see past the so-called Veil of Maya. He went so far as to insist that philosophers must use such substances in an effort to understand ultimate realities -- advice that, alas, most modern philosophers seem committed to ignoring.

"No account of the universe in its totality," wrote James, "can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded."

The exciting thing now is to consider Schopenhauer's philosophy in light of the revelations provided by certain drug use and to assess how such epiphanies tend to confirm, qualify or perhaps even refute the German pessimist's ideas about an eternal and unchangeable will, a will which the philosopher tells us is manifested in (or rather manifested AS) objects, animals, plants and persons. Schopenhauer tells us that the will corresponding to these entities is purposeful, for it seeks to create a specific kind of object or individual, but that the will is also meaningless, in the sense that the fact that it IS a specific kind of will is an arbitrary given, to which we need not ascribe any purpose, let alone a creator.

I am still trying to wrap my head around that latter claim, by the way, the idea that there can be teleology without design. I think I am slowly beginning to understand what Schopenhauer means by that claim in light of Kantian distinctions, but I am by no means sure that I agree with him. Yet I am not qualified to push back at this time. Further reading is required on my part before I can either refute him advisedly, or else concede his point. I do find, however, that Schopenhauer occasionally makes definitive-sounding claims that are actually quite open to obvious refutations.

In "The World as Will and Idea," for instance, he states that tropical birds have brilliant feathers "so that each male may find his female." Really? Then why are penguins not decked out with technicolor plumage? To assign "final causes" like this to nature is to turn animals into the inkblots of a biological Rorschach test. Not only is Schopenhauer being subjective here, but he has an agenda in making this particular kind of claim: he wants to underscore his belief that there is a logical causative explanation behind the fact that "wills" of the tropical birds would manifest in this colorful way, that it was not some act of extravagance on the part of a whimsical creator. But this kind of explanation is not the least bit compelling since one can imagine dozens of equally plausible "final causes" for the feature in question: the birds want to attract mates, the birds want to warn off predators, the birds want to mimic other yellow birds, the birds want to collectively camouflage themselves while roosting as one big yellow object (or more accurately, the birds' wills want to do these things).

One senses that Schopenhauer would respond as follows: "Fine. Give any reason you like, Ballard. But whatever you do, do not tell me that some suppositious God likes variety!"

And what about this famous pessimism? It's so typical of curmudgeons to try to make a universal law out of their own psychological issues. Schopenhauer does not seem to understand that attitude matters. As Hamlet said, "I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams." It is neither the shortness of life nor the inhumanity of our fellows that ruins life for most people -- but rather their attitude TOWARD such circumstances. Every manic-depressive knows that a blue sky and party cake does not make a person happy, nor living amid postcard scenery. One can commit suicide in Disneyland just as well as Skid Row. It is attitude, attitude, attitude that matters -- from which it follows that it is a sin to outlaw substances that can help us adopt a positive attitude toward life. That's why it's so frustrating that philosophers like Schopenhauer pretend that life can be judged by circumstances alone. Only once we acknowledge that attitude matters can we clearly see the importance of the many mind-improving medicines of which Mother Nature is full, the meds that we slander today by classing them under the pejorative label of "drugs."








  • Drug War Propaganda from Hollywood
  • Ego Transcendence Made Easy
  • If this be reason, let us make the least of it!
  • Psilocybin Breakthrough
  • Schopenhauer and Drugs
  • Too Honest to Be Popular?
  • What Can the Chemical Hold?
  • What if Arthur Schopenhauer Had Used DMT?
  • What's Drugs Got to Do With It?




  • Notes:

    1 Santayana, George, The Life of Reason, Project Gutenberg, (up)
    2 Quass, Brian, The Book of the Damned, 2024 (up)
    3 Quass, Brian, How materialists turned me into a patient for life, 2024 (up)
    4 Quass, Brian, Beta Blockers and the Materialist Tyranny of the War on Drugs, 2024 (up)
    5 Quass, Brian, The Poorly Hidden Materialist Agenda at Scientific American, 2024 (up)
    6 Quass, Brian, The War on Drugs and the Psychiatric Pill Mill, 2023 (up)
    7 Quass, Brian, Common Sense and the Drug War, 2024 (up)
    8 Santayana, George, The Life of Reason, Project Gutenberg, (up)
    9 James, William, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Philosophical Library, New York, 1902 (up)
    10 Santayana, George, The Life of Reason, Project Gutenberg, (up)
    11 Kastrup, Bernardo, Decoding Schopenhauer's Metaphysics: The key to understanding how it solves the hard problem of consciousness and the paradoxes of quantum mechancs, 2021 (up)
    12 James, William, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Philosophical Library, New York, 1902 (up)
    13 Quass, Brian, Behaviorism and the War on Drugs, 2024 (up)
    14 Quass, Brian, Why the FDA is not qualified to judge psychoactive medicine, 2024 (up)
    15 Quass, Brian, Forbes Magazine's Laughable Article about Nitrous Oxide, 2022 (up)
    16 Quass, Brian, Why the FDA should not schedule Laughing Gas, 2023 (up)
    17 Cargo cult, Britannica, (up)
    18 Rosenblum, Bruce, Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness, Oxford University Press, 2006 (up)
    19 Chopra, Deepak, The Spread of 'Stranger Than We Can Think', (up)



    People

    about whom and to whom I've written over the years...

    Alexander, Lamar
    Letter to Lamar Alexander
    Barrett, Frederick S.
    The common sense way to get off of antidepressants
    Why the Drug War is Worse than you can Imagine
    Benaroch MD, Roy
    Open Letter to Roy Benaroch MD
    Bloom, Josh
    Science is not free in the age of the drug war
    Buchanan, Julian
    Finally, a drug war opponent who checks all my boxes
    Chalmers, David
    David Chalmers and the Drug War
    Chelmow MD, David
    How the US Preventive Services Task Force Drums Up Business for Big Pharma
    Chomsky, Noam
    Chomsky is Right
    Chomsky's Revenge
    Noam Chomsky on Drugs
    Cline, Ben
    Open Letter to Congressman Ben Cline, asking him to abolish the criminal DEA
    Close, Glenn
    Glenn Close but no cigar
    Cossin, Daniel
    How AI turned William James into a Drug Warrior
    De Quincey, Thomas
    The Therapeutic Value of Anticipation
    Dick, Philip K.
    Drug Laws as the Punishment of 'Pre-Crime'
    Doblin, Rick
    Constructive criticism of the MAPS strategy for re-legalizing MDMA
    Is Rick Doblin Running with the Devil?
    Why Rick Doblin is Ghosting Me
    Ellsberg, Daniel
    Drug Warriors Fiddle while Rome Gets Nuked
    Falcon, Joshua
    Drugs are not the enemy, hatred is the enemy
    Floyd, George
    The Racist Drug War killed George Floyd
    Fort, Charles
    The Book of the Damned
    Fox, James Alan
    The Invisible Mass Shootings
    Friedman, Milton
    How Milton Friedman Completely Misunderstood the War on Drugs
    Fukuyama, Francis
    Open Letter to Francis Fukuyama
    Gibb, Andy
    How The Drug War Killed Andy Gibb
    Gimbel, Steven
    Heroin versus Alcohol
    Glaser, Gabrielle
    Open Letter to Gabrielle Glaser
    Glieberman, Owen
    Open Letter to Variety Critic Owen Glieberman
    Glover, Troy
    Open letter to Professor Troy Glover at Waterloo University
    Goswami, Amit
    Alternative Medicine as a Drug War Creation
    Gottlieb, Anthony
    Open Letter to Anthony Gottlieb
    Grandmaster Flash, musician
    Grandmaster Flash: Drug War Collaborator
    Griffiths, Roland
    Depressed? Here's why you can't get the medicines that you need
    Open Letter to Rick Doblin and Roland Griffiths
    Gupta, Sujata
    The Mother of all Western Biases
    Hammersley, Richard
    Open Letter to Richard Hammersley
    Handwerk, Brian
    How National Geographic slanders the Inca people and their use of coca
    Harris, Kamala
    Why I Support Kamala Harris
    Harrison, Francis Burton
    Screw You, Francis Burton Harrison
    Hart, Carl
    Open Letter to Dr. Carl L. Hart
    What Carl Hart Missed
    Harvey, Dennis
    How Variety and its film critics support drug war fascism
    Heidegger, Martin
    Heidegger on Drugs
    Hogshire, Jim
    I've got a bone to pick with Jim Hogshire
    Opium for the Masses by Jim Hogshire
    What Jim Hogshire Got Wrong about Drugs
    Hurley, Vincent
    Open Letter to Vincent Hurley, Lecturer
    Hutton, Ronald
    Drug Dealers as Modern Witches
    James, William
    How the Drug War is Threatening Intellectual Freedom in England
    Keep Laughing Gas Legal
    The Criminalization of Nitrous Oxide is No Laughing Matter
    William James rolls over in his grave as England bans Laughing Gas
    Jefferson, Thomas
    A Misguided Tour of Monticello
    How the Jefferson Foundation Betrayed Thomas Jefferson
    How the Monticello Foundation betrayed Jefferson's Legacy in 1987
    Jefferson
    The Dark Side of the Monticello Foundation
    Jenkins, Philip
    'Synthetic Panics' by Philip Jenkins
    Jenkins DA, Brooke
    Prohibitionists Never Learn
    Kant, Immanuel
    How the Drug War limits our understanding of Immanuel Kant
    How the Drug War Outlaws Criticism of Immanuel Kant
    Kastrup, Bernardo
    How Bernardo Kastrup reckons without the drug war
    Kenny, Gino
    The Right to LIVE FULLY is more important than the Right to DIE
    Kirsch, Irving
    Brahms is NOT the best antidepressant
    Klang, Jessica
    All these Sons
    Kotek, Tina
    Regulate and Educate
    Koterski, Jospeh
    America's Blind Spot
    Kurtz, Matthew M.
    How Scientific American reckons without the drug war
    Langlitz, Nicolas
    Why the FDA is not qualified to judge psychoactive medicine
    Lee, Spike
    Spike Lee is Bamboozled by the Drug War
    Leshner, Alan I.
    How the Drug War Screws the Depressed
    Lewis, Edward
    Psilocybin Mushrooms by Edward Lewis
    Ling, Lisa
    Open Letter to Lisa Ling
    Locke, John
    John Locke on Drugs
    Maples-Keller, Jessica
    Hello? MDMA works, already!
    Margaritoff, Marco
    In Defense of Opium
    Open Letter to Margo Margaritoff
    Marinacci, Mike
    Psychedelic Cults and Outlaw Churches: LSD, Cannabis, and Spiritual Sacraments in Underground America
    Martinez, Liz
    Replacing antidepressants with entheogens
    Mate, Gabor
    In the Realm of Hungry Drug Warriors
    Open Letter to Addiction Specialist Gabor Mate
    Sherlock Holmes versus Gabor Maté
    McAllister, Sean
    How to Unite Drug War Opponents of all Ethnicities
    Mithoefer, MD, Michael
    MDMA for Psychotherapy
    Mohler, George
    Predictive Policing in the Age of the Drug War
    Morgan, Cory
    Canadian Drug Warrior, I said Get Away
    Naz, Arab
    The Menace of the Drug War
    Newcombe, Russell
    Intoxiphobia
    Nietzsche, Friedrich
    Nietzsche and the Drug War
    Nixon, Richard
    Why Hollywood Owes Richard Nixon an Oscar
    Noakes, Jesse
    Americans have the right to pursue happiness but not to attain it
    Nobis, Nathan
    Top 10 Problems with the Drug War
    Nutt, David
    Majoring in Drug War Philosophy
    O'Leary, Diane
    Open Letter to Diane O'Leary
    Obama, Barack
    What Obama got wrong about drugs
    Offenhartz, Jake
    Libertarians as Closet Christian Scientists
    Pearson, Snoop
    Snoop Pearson's muddle-headed take on drugs
    Perry, Matthew
    Drug War Murderers
    Matthew Perry and the Drug War Ghouls
    Pinchbeck, Daniel
    Review of When Plants Dream
    Polk, Thad
    How Addiction Scientists Reckon without the Drug War
    Pollan, Michael
    Michael Pollan on Drugs
    My Conversation with Michael Pollan
    The Michael Pollan Fallacy
    Rado, Vincent
    Open Letter to Vincent Rado
    Reuter, Peter
    The problem with Modern Drug Reform Efforts
    Rovelli, Carlo
    Why Science is the Handmaiden of the Drug War
    Rudgeley, Richard
    Richard Rudgley condemns 'drugs' with faint praise
    Sabet, Kevin
    Why Kevin Sabet's approach to drugs is racist, anti-scientific and counterproductive
    Sanders, Laura
    Science News Continues to Ignore the Drug War
    Santayana, George
    If this be reason, let us make the least of it!
    Schopenhauer, Arthur
    Ego Transcendence Made Easy
    What if Arthur Schopenhauer Had Used DMT?
    Schultes, Richard Evans
    The Drug War Imperialism of Richard Evans Schultes
    Segall PhD, Matthew D.
    Why Philosophers Need to Stop Dogmatically Ignoring Drugs
    Sewell, Kenneth
    Open letter to Kenneth Sewell
    Shapiro, Arthur
    Illusions with Professor Arthur Shapiro
    Smith, Wolfgang
    Open letter to Wolfgang Smith
    Unscientific American
    Smyth, Bobby
    Teenagers and Cannabis
    Sotillos, Samuel Bendeck
    In Defense of Religious Drug Use
    Stea, Jonathan
    The Pseudoscience of Mental Health Treatment
    Strassman, Rick
    Five problems with The Psychedelic Handbook by Rick Strassman
    What Rick Strassman Got Wrong
    Szasz, Thomas
    In Praise of Thomas Szasz
    Tulfo, Ramon T.
    Why the Drug War is far worse than a failure
    Urquhart, Steven
    No drugs are bad in and of themselves
    Vance, Laurence
    In Response to Laurence Vance
    Walker, Lynn
    Ignorance is the enemy, not Fentanyl
    Walsh, Bryan
    The Drug War and Armageddon
    The End Times by Bryan Walsh
    Warner, Mark
    Another Cry in the Wilderness
    Watson, JB
    Behaviorism and the War on Drugs
    Weil, Andrew
    What Andrew Weil Got Wrong
    Wells, HG
    HG Wells and Drugs
    Whitaker, Robert
    Mad at Mad in America
    Whitehead, Alfred North
    Whitehead and Psychedelics
    Willyard, Cassandra
    Science News magazine continues to pretend that there is no war on drugs
    Winehouse, Amy
    How the Drug War Killed Amy Winehouse
    Wininger, Charley
    Getting off antidepressants in the age of the drug war
    Wuthnow, Robert
    Clodhoppers on Drugs
    Zelfand, Erica
    Open Letter to Erica Zelfand
    Zinn, Howard
    Even Howard Zinn Reckons without the Drug War
    Zuboff, Shoshana
    Tune In, Turn On, Opt Out



    computer screen with words DRUG WAR BLOG


    Next essay: Drugs are not the enemy, hatred is the enemy
    Previous essay: She Devils and Substance Prohibition

    More Essays Here




    Some Tweets against the hateful war on drugs

    If fearmongering drug warriors were right about the weakness of humankind, there would be no social drinkers, only drunkards.
    Being a lifetime patient is not the issue: that could make perfect sense in certain cases. But if I am to be "using" for life, I demand the drug of MY CHOICE, not that of Big Pharma and mainstream psychiatry, who are dogmatically deaf to the benefits of hated substances.
    "Abuse" is a funny term because it implies that there's a right way to use "drugs," which is something that the drug warriors deny. To the contrary, they make the anti-scientific claim that "drugs" are not good for anybody for any reason at any dose.
    I'm told that science is completely unbiased today. I guess I'll have to go back and reassess my doubts about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
    Rick Strassman isn't sure that DMT should be legal. Really?! Does he not realize how dangerous it is to chemically extract DMT from plants? In the name of safety, prohibitionists have encouraged dangerous ignorance and turned local police into busybody Nazis.
    It also bothers me that gun fanatics support the drug war. If I have no rights to mother nature, then they have no rights to guns. If the Fourth Amendment can be ignored based on lies and ignorance, then so can the Second.
    I can think of no greater intrusion than to deny a person autonomy over how they think and feel in life. It is sort of a meta-intrusion, the mother of all anti-democratic intrusions.
    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho Marx
    This massive concern for safety is downright bizarre in a country that will not even criminalize bump stocks for automatic weapons.
    If there is an epidemic of "self-harm," prohibitionists never think of outlawing razor blades. They ask: "Why the self-harm?" But if there is an epidemic of drug use which they CLAIM is self-harm, they never ask "Why the self-harm?" They say: "Let's prohibit and punish!"
    More Tweets



    The latest hits from Drug War Records, featuring Freddie and the Fearmongers!


    1. Requiem for the Fourth Amendment



    2. There's No Place Like Home (until the DEA gets through with it)



    3. O Say Can You See (what the Drug War's done to you and me)






    front cover of Drug War Comic Book

    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, If this be reason, let us make the least of it!: an essay on the philosophy of George Santayana, published on December 30, 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)