No one has lopped more heads off of the hydra-headed beast of drug-related misunderstanding than Hungarian-American psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, and one of his greatest insights had to do with doctors. Ever since they were empowered with the privilege of writing (or withholding) prescriptions, Szasz tells us, the sick or troubled amongst us have been encouraged to think of themselves as babies when it comes to medications. We know nothing about medicine and our medical instincts, experiences, and pharmacological desires count for little. The big question is: "What does a board-certified doctor think that we need?" Even if we are visiting the eminent physician for a simple cold (something that our great grandparents might have laughed off with a little tincture of opium 1 ), we still must appeal to the brow-wrinkling doctor if we hope to access anything more powerful than acetaminophen and cough drops.
I am not reminding the reader of this lost Eden in order to promote the dangerous solitary use of psychedelics and other substances, but rather to remind us that our caution on these topics is caused in part by our knee-jerk obedience to a healthcare paradigm that infantilizes us as patients and urges us to discount our medical instincts and experiences2. We have been trained to distrust ourselves when it comes to drugs, to the point that the term "self-medicating3" has become the taboo par excellence in the modern age. But let's remember that the disdain that modern doctors hold for "self-medicating" can be explained by more than just their concerns about patient health: after all, a doctor's bottom line is impacted precisely to the extent that their potential patients choose to "self-medicate." Little wonder then that doctors seek to characterize such patient initiative as medical heresy.
The inconvenient truth is that the non-medical world, with its many psychoactive substances, has far more effective cures for my depression than does the medical world with its beard-stroking doctors and outrageously limited pharmacopeia (especially if I have at least one botanically minded spiritual guide to aid me in my quest for self-improvement). I therefore would consider self-medication to be the rational choice for treating what ails me, were it not for the fact that the DEA is waiting to arrest me should I have the gall to improve my life outside the healthcare system with the mere help of Mother Nature. But let's remember that, in arresting me, the DEA is just following the medical profession's taboo to its logical conclusion: they are essentially arresting me for self-medicating. In this way the DEA is really just the enforcement arm of the American medical establishment. The two are in cahoots. They are both working to disempower the American people when it comes to healthcare.
One in four American women are hooked on Big Pharma anti-depressants, many of which are more addictive than heroin 4. That's a nice tidy annuity for pharmaceutical executives, especially when you add in the one in eight 5 males who are likewise addicted. No wonder there are so many lobbyists in DC asking Congress to "double down" on the Drug War. The Drug War is the goose that lays the golden egg, not just for Big Pharma but for psychiatrists, law enforcement and the corrections industry as well.
July 10, 2022
This was written three years ago, when Brian was still basically a kid (couldn't have been more than 62 years old). He's since realized that Szasz fell short in a few ways, which, however, does not in any way diminish his accomplishments when it comes to pushing back against the willfully ignorant Drug War.
What Szasz failed to notice
1) Szasz seems to have erred on the side of Libertarians in assuming that "drug use" was, indeed, by and large unnecessary, but that prohibition was still a flawed response to such use. He seems to pay short shrift to the fact that psychoactive drugs inspired the Vedic religion, the mushroom cults, and the Eleusinian Mysteries, from which Plato got his ideas about the afterlife6. When it comes to drugs, the Libertarian wants to let people "go to the devil in their own way." But this attitude yields far too much ground to the Drug Warrior, by agreeing with their false proposition that hypocritically defined "drug use" is stupid at some level, but must be tolerated. Wrong. Drug use is the fountainhead of the religious impulse and the source of most historic prophesying. To consider "drug use" as merely a dubious pastime of hippies is to make the Drug Warrior mistake of considering such use only in the context of 1960's America. Of course, the Drug War as Nixon defined it was a war against such youths and their pacifist and potentially communistic ideology, but in the larger picture, "drugs" have been used by Marco Polo, Marcus Aurelius, Benjamin Franklin, Richard Feynman, HG Wells, Jules Verne, Henrik Ibsen, etc. etc. etc. Drug use in general has nothing to do with American hippies, except "accidentally," as a philosopher would use that term.
2) In connection with the above remark, Szasz gives short shrift to the potential positive uses for drugs which the Drug War requires us to ignore entirely: teaching music appreciation, teaching compassion, providing concentration on tasks requiring "attention to detail," learning new approaches to life, seeing the world outside of the prison of one's default mode network, thanks to which one is blind to useful alternatives to non-constructive behavioral patterns instilled by nature and/or nurture.
3) He also fails to fully point out the link between materialism 7, reductionism and the Drug War -- though this is partly due to the fact that he lived during the "growth spurt" of the psychiatric pill mill 8 , which had yet to render 1 in 4 American women dependent on Big Pharma meds for life, thereby creating a world that is eerily like "The Stepford Wives," complete with a bell sounding at regular intervals (helpfully provided by Siri) to remind the female to "take her meds." Speaking of which, I keep waiting in vain for Margaret Atwood to denounce this real-life dystopia, but such drug use appears to be a new religion. For the field of psychiatry is taking full advantage of Drug War prohibition to hook Americans on Big Pharma 910 drugs under the pretense of "scientifically curing sadness." So I guess Margaret knows that to push back against the trend would make her stand out as a reactionary against American "progress," even though the status quo is the incarnation of the anti-female dystopias that she (and novelist Ira Levin) would otherwise revile as a matter of course.
Author's Follow-up:
I actually shared my views on the Drug War with Thomas Szasz himself in the 1980s in a lengthy letter -- to which he actually responded in a lengthy letter. Imagine that! Szasz remains the only person in the world so far to this day who took up my request to discuss drug-related matters in depth and from a philosophical point of view. I cannot find support anywhere else, even where you might expect it. I recently even got "unfollowed" by the Thomas Szasz quote page on Bluesky. I should point out that the quote page in question was following no one at all, last I checked, so maybe I should take that as consolation. It is still not clear to me why they began following me in the first place, however. One day I was liked, the next... not so much. If I were paranoid, I would think that they did this like-dislike business on purpose. "We LIKE ya Brian... NOT!!! Ha ha ha ha! Wait till he sees the unlike!"
Szasz was moving in the direction of identifying materialism as a sort of unindicted co-conspirator in the War on Drugs. His criticism of the "illness" paradigm with regard to mental health issues was at least pointing him in that direction. It is bad luck on my part that our timelines did not align such that we could have shot the breeze on such topics. I could not have followed through with him on this topic as a student in the 1980s in any case, because I was then still decades away from recognizing the category error implicit in putting materialist scientists in charge of mind and mood medicine. Modern materialists are behaviorists with regards to human psychology, after all, meaning that they are dogmatically obliged to ignore all common sense proof of drug efficacy. For them, it does not matter that a drug cheers me up and inspires me and makes me want to live. The behaviorist wants to find a drug that "really" works for me, i.e., according to the expectations of reductionist science. In other words, the primary goal of the materialist drug researcher is not to improve the life of the drug taker but rather to prove the omnipotence of the materialist conception of life in all areas of human endeavor.
What's the answer?
The true experts when it comes to mind and mood are real empathic people with a vast understanding of pharmacology and ethnography: a knowledge of all the best time-honored beneficial uses of drugs and how to emulate them -- including those practices employed in the hitherto hushed-up cases where folks have used drugs wisely for good reasons behind closed doors and in defiance of the tyrannous outlawing of godsend medicines. The true experts in the field are -- or someday will be -- what I call "pharmacologically savvy empaths.11"
Author's Follow-up:
May 05, 2025
Szasz is sometimes criticized for his campaign to end the indiscriminate institutionalization of homeless people by the police. But why do Drug Warriors criticize a change from the arrest-driven status quo?
ANSWER: Because the mere presence of homeless people on the streets is pointing to social problems that America's Drug Warriors do not want to deal with. By arresting the homeless, Drug Warriors can hide the problems created by modern capitalism as practiced today in the United States. It is "out of sight, out of mind" when it comes to social problems, as far as Drug Warriors are concerned.
This is the exact same reason why Drug Warrior agitators from around the country converged on Oregon last year to overturn that state's decriminalization of drugs. For conservatives and fascists and members of the Church of The Infallible Capitalist, drug criminalization is a way to hide the problems of society by arresting the canaries in the mine. It hides the problems that the presence of the homeless street people are broadcasting to the world: namely, that modern capitalism 12 is broke: that it has led to enormous income inequality and to complete indifference to the healthcare needs for the poor, especially when it comes to psychological well-being. Drug warriors do not want to spend a penny on solving those problems, of course, but they are willing to spend billions on hiding them. And drug criminalization gives police the power to do just that. Drug warriors know this and so they seek to arrest those whose very existence is an implicit criticism of modern social, economic and drug policy.
Szasz's critics do not care about the homeless people on the street; they just do not want to be reminded of the fact that their political policies are not working. They want to be able to travel between their multiple McMansions without being offended by the sight of homeless people whose presence clearly demonstrates the inadequacy of the status quo. They do not want to be reminded that their selfish, hate-filled and prohibitionist social system is not working for the average person. Drug warriors hate the idea of drug-relegalization 13 because when it finally occurs, they will no longer be able to direct our attention away from the 6,000-pound gorillas in the room. They will be forced to admit the existence of real social problems in America, starting with the inhumane and violence-causing Drug War itself, and so be obliged to spend time and money on solving them. In a post-prohibition world, their penny-pinching selfishness will no longer be hidden under the veneer of their hypocritical hatred of the inanimate substances that we choose to demonize today as "drugs."
Here's one problem that supporters of the psychiatric pill mill never address: the fact that Big Pharma antidepressants demoralize users by turning them into patients for life.
Musk vies with his fellow materialists in his attempt to diss humans as insignificant. But we are not insignificant. The very term "insignificant" is a human creation. Consciousness rules. Indeed, consciousness makes the rules. Without us, there would only be inchoate particles.
Folks point to the seemingly endless drugs that can be synthesized today and say it's a reason for prohibition. To the contrary, it's the reason why prohibition is madness. It results in an endless game of militaristic whack-a-mole at the expense of democratic freedoms.
I hope that scientists will eventually find the prohibition gene so that we can eradicate this superstitious way of thinking from humankind. "Ug! Drugs bad! Drugs not good for anyone, anywhere, at any dose, for any reason, ever! Ug!"
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.
The UK just legalized assisted dying. This means that you can use drugs to kill a person, but you still can't use drugs to make that person want to live.
David Chalmers says almost everything in the world can be reductively explained. Maybe so. But science's mistake is to think that everything can therefore be reductively UNDERSTOOD. That kind of thinking blinds researchers to the positive effects of laughing gas and MDMA, etc.
The drug war tells us that certain drugs have no potential uses and then turns that into a self-fulfilling prophecy by outlawing these drugs. This is insanely anti-scientific and anti-progress. We should never give up on looking for positive uses for ANY substance.
We don't need people to get "clean." We need people to start living a fulfilling life. The two things are different.
If they're going to throw doctors in jail for prescribing too much pain medication, they should also throw them in jail for prescribing too LITTLE.
(up)