Mental Illness and the Drug Apartheid of Julian Buchanan
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
November 4, 2022
ne of the many totally unrecognized reasons for the Drug War's longevity is the fact that we have been taught to believe that all mental "problems" are illnesses - not simply in the metaphorical sense of that word but in a literal materialist sense as well. Those who believe in this paradigm generally believe that Big Pharma is creating pills for depression that target a chemical imbalance, and so we must visit a prescribing psychiatrist if we wish to treat our depression wisely, that is to say "scientifically." Unfortunately, however, it has long been known that anti-depressants create the actual chemical imbalances that they purport to fix, hence the extreme difficulty that the long-term user encounters when they attempt to "kick" such drugs. In other words, the psychiatric pill mill has far more to do with scientism than with actual science. It remains in place because of financial interests and a steady stream of Big Pharma-sponsored academics making the rounds of the prime-time talk shows to remind us all to "keep taking our meds," and encouraging us to get our children (yes, and even our toddlers) to do so as well: you know, to "scientifically" nip any future potential "mental problems" in the bud. This "illness" paradigm has additional staying power because of the simple psychological fact that psychiatrists (though they may hate the Drug War ever so much) are loath to admit that they have been unnecessarily turning their clients into lifetime patients and wards of the healthcare state for years now by prescribing these drugs in the first place.
But for those who don't believe me (nor the research of Thomas Szasz, Robert Whitaker, Julie Holland and Irving Kirsch), I would merely point out that I have 40 years' worth of experience taking such drugs and they have never "cured" my depression. Indeed, they can never do so, for the simple reason that my definition of "cure" does not coincide with the definition of those who have created these drugs. A "cure" for my depression would help me obtain self-actualization in life, but these drugs (SSRIs, SNRIs, and tricyclics) tranquilize rather than empower me. Indeed, that's why the world keeps telling folks like myself to "keep taking your meds," not so that we "patients" can become empowered, but so that we can become complacent consumers like themselves and stop harassing them with the notion that we want more out of life. If these drugs actually helped us to become assertive, creative and hence unpredictable human beings, nobody would be pestering us to take them. For when we tell a friend these days to "take their meds," we are essentially telling them to "shut the f--- up." "Take your meds so you will stop bothering us and we can get on with business as usual." In other words, "meds" are considered good these days in the same way that lobotomies were considered good in the past: not because they helped "mental patients" but because they made life easier for those who worked and lived around them.
(Yes, I'm coming to Julian Buchanan in a moment, but this backstory is crucial to understanding how the existence of the "drug apartheid" that he describes has bamboozled both scientists and laypeople alike.)
Of course, there's no surprise that such a myth of mental "illness" should have staying power, even putting aside for the moment the enormous windfall that such a paradigm creates for the healthcare industry. As caregivers in a liberal society, we feel that we have only two choices: either we refer to psychosocial problems as mental illness or we blame the problematic behavior on the "patients" themselves. But there is a third way out of this supposed dilemma: to outlaw the discussion of "blame" altogether. We merely need to recognize the once-obvious fact that life is complicated and that people have problems. The question of who is ultimately to "blame" for their problems is a metaphysical one, concerning nature and nurture, free will and determinism, the reigning political zeitgeist, and the rationality (or lack thereof) of current social practices, mores and laws. The only pertinent question for the caregiver is: how do we help the person who is suffering? The discussion of "blame" should be confined to courtrooms, synods and philosophy departments, where the modern ethicists are free to debate until doomsday about who is to blame in some ultimate and final sense, be it society, the individual, one's parents, one's diet, one's friends, (etc. etc. etc.) or some convoluted combination of such factors.
And how does this belief in mental "illness" promote the Drug War?
It does so by implicitly positing two categories of psychoactive substances in the world, what Julian Buchanan calls a system of "drug apartheid." According to this world view, there are "meds" like SSRIs, which are "scientifically" created and which it is our duty to take every day of our lives; and then there are "drugs" like opium, which are generally produced by mother nature and which have no good uses whatsoever: not for any person, at any dose, in any place, for any reason, at any time, ever. This is the "understanding" upon which healthcare is administered today in the States (and, alas, around the world): meds good, drugs bad. It's a modern-day Manichaeism created by politicians in order to privilege drugs like alcohol and nicotine, while demonizing their psychoactive competition.
Of course, the reality is that psychoactive substances are psychoactive substances, whether we're talking nicotine or opium, coffee or cocaine. They are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. Moreover, every "drug" can have potential uses. Even deadly toxins like Botox and cyanide have medical applications. But according to Drug War ideology, once politicians label a substance as a "drug" (rather than a "med"), we are duty bound to ignore any positive uses for said substance. God knows how many treatments for depression, autism, and Alzheimer's we have jettisoned a priori by taking this anti-scientific stand: a stand, incidentally, supported by the self-censorship of scientists themselves -- the same scientists whom Kevin Sabet assures us are objective, impartial and rational arbiters when it comes to the potential usefulness of psychoactive medicine.
The fact that the world accepts this drug apartheid as natural can be seen, not in what is published today, but in what is not published. You will never see an article discussing how therapeutic MDMA could keep hotheads from shooting up grade schools. You will never see an article describing how the carefully staged use of psychedelics could increase music appreciation. You will never see an article describing how the occasional use of morphine in a controlled setting (for the right person, at the right time, etc.) can greatly increase one's appreciation of the natural world around us.
Of course, in the latter case, the proponent of drug apartheid will tell us that morphine is addictive, as if that were a knock-down argument against its use. But the idea that an addictive "drug" has to be used addictively is the principal lie upon which drug apartheid is based and justified. The fact is that even crack cocaine can be used non-addictively if one is educated to do so. One simply "spaces out usage," in the same way that British poets used to take opium in what Richard Middleton called "a series of magnificent quarterly carouses." However, Drug Warriors refuse to champion the necessary education to ensure such safe use. And why not? Because they know that to be fully honest about psychoactive medicine would mean being harshly critical of the psychiatric pill mill and the medicalization of mind-related issues in general.
In fact, the paradigm of mental "illness" could not survive without drug apartheid. Once Mother Nature's bounty is re-legalized and education is widespread and thorough, few "patients" would opt for today's "scientific" meds, which fail to bring enlightenment and which require a lifetime commitment of time and money, and which, moreover, turn them into wards of the healthcare state. Instead, they would treat what ails them with "unscientific" but natural "drugs," usually with the help of psychologically savvy empaths (modern-day shamans) who would guide their use while keeping the client's life goals in mind, not the life goals of some Big Pharma drug inventor who assumes a tranquil patient is a "cured" patient. Of course, Americans have been taught to believe that folks will never be smart enough to use "drugs" wisely in this way, but that's just another Big Lie (and self-fulfilling prophecy) promoted by conservatives, the same know-nothing politicians whose motto is: "billions for law enforcement, not one cent for schools, teachers, Head Start programs, etc.." These are the same people who taught us a few decades ago that a substance will fry one's brain the moment it is outlawed by pharmacologically clueless politicians like themselves. Their message to Americans is: "Be afraid! Be very afraid!"
Our response should be: "Be educated! Be very educated!" And we should force skinflint Drug Warrior politicians to make that happen by supporting programs that provide unbiased education.
But the future is rosy once we finally end drug apartheid and deal with all psychoactive medicines without regard for political, religious or corporate biases. The very concept of patient would disappear, as we stop pathologizing common psychological distress and treat it instead as a natural part of the human condition, using all the medical godsends that mother nature has supplied for that purpose. With all of these godsends once again at our disposal and unbiased substance education widespread and thorough, the pharmacologically savvy shaman would treat clients (not patients) not simply for problems -- like alcoholism and depression -- but for aspirations as well, as when tin-eared supplicants seek to increase their music appreciation or when those clients who feel "stuck in a rut" are taught to deeply appreciate the bounty of mother nature that surrounds them.
End note in anticipation of dissenting materialists:
Of course, there are some real neurological problems that have a clear physical basis and need to be treated with that in mind. But that's a far cry from pathologizing almost every mental predilection under the sun, as the Diagnostic Statistical Manual attempts to do, with the implication being that each behavior described therein is truly a discrete illness that could be safely excised from the psyche without regard for context.
Author's Follow-up: November 5, 2022
I am not anti-psychiatry, rather I'm anti-Drug War and the pill mill that it has created by outlawing almost all safe and naturally occurring psychoactive medicines. If those pills really are the treatment of choice these days, it is only because we have outlawed all competition. This is a shabby cure, if only because it has turned so many Americans (including 1 in 4 American women) into wards of the healthcare state. As far as the money needed to establish the thorough, unbiased substance education that I champion, that will come from the enormous amount of money that we are currently spending on locking people up and on invading other countries whose residents dare to defy our ban on the natural godsends that grow at our very feet.
By the by: Here's a classic line from 21st-century Drug Warriors: "We have to outlaw drugs now that there are so many available and the list is changing all the time."
Wrong. It's precisely because we live in a drug-full world (thanks, in part, to Mother Nature herself) that we must teach safe use. Otherwise, we are paying law enforcement to play wack-a-mole with every new substance that appears on the black market -- the black market that we ourselves have created. It's not that a war like that can never be won, it's rather that a war like that must never be allowed to win, since its goal is to stop people from seeking self-transcendence in life and from improving their lives.
Seriously. What kind of world best accords with the principles of freedom and democracy: a world in which we find benefits for the use of all medicines (at some dose, for some person, etc.) and teach safe use, or a world in which we declare a priori that certain drugs have no positive uses whatsoever for anybody, ever, and then lock up people who dare to use them despite our anti-scientific edicts?
The latter solution describes an anti-scientific police state, not a democracy: it describes a world wherein the powers-that-be completely ignore the power of education to improve the human mind, laughably insisting that human beings not only have no right to mother nature's medicines, but that they actually have to be actively protected from the same. That is a religious conclusion, the conclusion of stealth Christian Scientists in fact, especially in light of the fact that such godsends have inspired entire religions in the past.
As great as it is, "Synthetic Panics" by Philip Jenkins was only tolerated by academia because it did not mention drugs in the title and it contains no explicit opinions about drugs. As a result, many drug law reformers still don't know the book exists.
Our tolerance for freedom wanes in proportion as we consider "drugs" to be demonic. This is the dark side behind the new ostensibly comic genre about Cocaine Bears and such. It shows that Americans are superstitious about drugs in a way that Neanderthals would have understood.
When folks banned opium, they did not just ban a drug: they banned the philosophical and artistic insights that the drug has been known to inspire in writers like Poe, Lovecraft and De Quincey.
"My faith votes and strives to outlaw religions that use substances of which politicians disapprove."
There's a run of addiction movies out there, like "Craving!" wherein they actually personify addiction as a screaming skeleton. Funny, drug warriors never call for a Manhattan Project to end addiction. Addiction is their golden goose.
In Mexico, the same substance can be considered a "drug" or a "med," depending on where you are in the country. It's just another absurd result of the absurd policy of drug prohibition.
One merely has to look at any issue of Psychology Today to see articles in which the author reckons without the Drug War, in which they pretend that banned substances do not exist and so fail to incorporate any topic-related insights that might otherwise come from user reports.
Katie MacBride's one-sided attack on MAPS reminds me of why I got into an argument with Vincent Rado. Yes, psychedelic hype can go too far, but let's solve the huge problem first by ending the drug war!!!
It's no wonder that folks blame drugs. Carl Hart is the first American scientist to openly say in a published book that even the so-called "hard" drugs can be used wisely. That's info that the drug warriors have always tried to keep from us.
Many psychedelic fans are still drug warriors at heart. They just think that a nice big exception should be carved out for the drugs that they're suddenly finding useful. Wrong. Substance demonization is wrong, root and branch. It always causes more suffering than freedom.
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, Mental Illness and the Drug Apartheid of Julian Buchanan published on November 4, 2022 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)
ne of the many totally unrecognized reasons for the Drug War's longevity is the fact that we have been taught to believe that all mental "problems" are illnesses - not simply in the metaphorical sense of that word but in a literal materialist sense as well. Those who believe in this paradigm generally believe that Big Pharma is creating pills for depression that target a chemical imbalance, and so we must visit a prescribing psychiatrist if we wish to treat our depression wisely, that is to say "scientifically." Unfortunately, however, it has long been known that anti-depressants create the actual chemical imbalances that they purport to fix, hence the extreme difficulty that the long-term user encounters when they attempt to "kick" such drugs. In other words, the psychiatric pill mill has far more to do with scientism than with actual science. It remains in place because of financial interests and a steady stream of Big Pharma-sponsored academics making the rounds of the prime-time talk shows to remind us all to "keep taking our meds," and encouraging us to get our children (yes, and even our toddlers) to do so as well: you know, to "scientifically" nip any future potential "mental problems" in the bud. This "illness" paradigm has additional staying power because of the simple psychological fact that psychiatrists (though they may hate the Drug War ever so much) are loath to admit that they have been unnecessarily turning their clients into lifetime patients and wards of the healthcare state for years now by prescribing these drugs in the first place.
You have been reading an article entitled, Mental Illness and the Drug Apartheid of Julian Buchanan published on November 4, 2022 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)