Ten Points that no one ever makes about so-called Drugs
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
April 24, 2023
1) The Drug War outlaws free research by preventing and/or discouraging researchers from searching for cures for Alzheimer's 1 (in psychedelics that grow new neurons) and from following up the philosophical research of William James (viz. his use of laughing gas 2 and related substances).
2) Substance prohibition violates Natural Law insofar as it criminalizes the plants and fungi which God himself told us were "good." Instead, we're told that they have no positive uses, for anybody, ever. That is an anti-scientific stand, since there are no such substances in the world. Even cyanide and botox have positive uses.
3) Western science has long been biased on this topic. You can see this in the fact that almost no academic articles have been written on the positive uses of "drugs," but thousands upon thousands are written about drug "abuse" and "misuse." In other words, academicians have swallowed the Drug War lie that "drugs" can have no positive uses, for anyone, ever.
4) The treatment of addiction is hobbled by the fact that the Drug War establishes the goal of sobriety for the user. In this way, addiction treatment is the enforcement of the Christian Science religion according to which a hypocritically defined sobriety is godly (especially given that the goal is to make the addict accept a thinly disguised Christian God known as a "higher power"). If empathic individuals could, shaman-like, treat "addicts" with any substance on earth, the outlook for "addicts" would be so much better. In fact, I say that we have no right to opine on the ability of therapy to overcome addiction as long as we're denying the therapist a whole pharmacy full of useful drugs for that purpose -- not the least of which are the hundreds of non-addictive godsends formulated by Alexander Shulgin, promoter of MDMA 3 . If a boxer had one hand tied behind his back and kept losing fights, we would not claim that he was not strong enough to win, but we would rather point out indignantly that he, in fact, had one hand tied behind his back. Likewise if addiction seems unbeatable, let's also consider that we have tied one hand behind the back of any therapist by outlawing almost all the substances that could help effect a real change in the "user."
5) The term "drug abuse disorder" is a political label. The government first outlaws a plant that it had no right to outlaw. Then it claims that those who still want to access that plant are merely showing the symptoms of a "disease."
6) Most overdoses on heroin 4 are due to uncertain dosages. I think when we write about such overdoses, we need to point this out -- otherwise when we say "heroin overdose," the reader immediately tends to blame the "drug" rather than the prohibition which promoted fear rather than knowledge about safe use.
7) The original charter of the ONDCP (the Office of National Drug Control Policy) forbade board members from even discussing positive uses of "drugs." In other words, the ONDCP is a propaganda arm of the US government and its policies help explain why academia almost never talks about positive uses of drugs -- as, for instance, morphine 5 can give users a deep appreciation of Mother Nature and coca can bring about mental clarity a la Sherlock Holmes. Likewise, opium 6 has inspired poets such as Poe and Lovecraft.
8) The Drug War has taught us that addictive drugs can only be used addictively. This attitude rules out a legion of positive uses for drugs when used at the right dose in the right circumstance. So sure are we of this credo, that no one has stopped to think of how mental sufferers could be therapeutically treated with a variety of drugs under a variety of circumstances. We close our eyes to a plethora of options (limited only by the imagination) because of this drug-war superstition that addictive drugs cannot be used non-addictively.
9) As a lifetime "junkie" on Big Pharma antidepressants 7, the discussion of heroin always seems odd to me: Heroin addiction is always taken as a great evil. But how can that be in a country in which 1 in 4 American women are dependent on SSRIs for life? Not only is this not seen as a problem, but we actually encourage the chemically dependent women to "take their meds" -- whenever they begin to act in a way that bothers us. It seems like addiction bothers us because it's an esthetic thing -- we see the problems associated with it -- which are really problems caused by prohibition in any case. Whereas the chemically dependent never bother us because they always get their supply -- and if they don't, they'll just feel horrible inside, without bothering us by robbing banks or sitting idly on a street corner like the poor heroin addict, for whom the Drug War has made safe and affordable supply impossible.
10) Much writing about drugs seems to suggest that there's no possible cause for it -- except maybe despair. That is just not true. People's number-one goal in life is to succeed, NOT to live safely. If a "drug" helps them think more clearly or perform a job that they might otherwise "choke" at, the sane choice is drug use -- rather than to accept a tranquilizing drug from Big Pharma which dulls the mind and turns the user into a ward of the healthcare state. People want to transcend their own limitations -- and we should be helping them do that safely -- not punishing them en masse for valuing self-actualization over abstract "safety."
Most of all: We should be helping folks live the life of their dreams using any drug or drugs necessary for that purpose (unless, of course, the person being treated professes a belief in Christian Science, in which case they would presumably turn down Big Pharma 89 meds as well).
Author's Follow-up: April 24, 2023
I don't mean to imply that a therapist will always be necessary. Once we re-legalize Mother Nature and -- for the first time in history -- learn everything we can about every single psychoactive substance in the world, a savvy individual can leverage the knowledge thus obtained to engage in safe and productive substance use. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is more than a new protocol -- it's a new way of looking at the world, or rather an old way finally acknowledged: namely, the idea that Mother Nature produces godsends and that psychoactive medicines are tools to personal growth -- and not just moral traps for lapsed votaries of the drug-hating Christian Science religion.
The whole idea of addiction is a creation of the Drug War mentality: it is promoted by prohibition, first by outlawing popular godsends, thus turning users from "habitues" into "addicts" -- and then by outlawing all the substances that could be used to help a user get off a substance which they no longer desire to use. When I think of our dim prognosis for addicts these days, I think of a nation that has outlawed antibiotics and then gripes about the prevalence of bacterial infections.
This new way of life will not just tolerate drugs, but actually encourage their use in cases where they can bring love to a stubborn heart or make life livable for someone whose mindset -- for no fault of their own -- has a purblind focus on doom and gloom.
Here is a sample drug-use report from the book "Pihkal":
"More than tranquil, I was completely at peace, in a beautiful, benign, and placid place."
Prohibition is a crime against humanity for withholding such drug experiences from the depressed (and from everybody else).
America arrests people whose only crime is that they are trying to be all that they can be in life... in such a way that psychiatrists are not getting THEIR cut.
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.
It's funny to hear fans of sacred plants indignantly insisting that their meds are not "drugs." They're right in a way, but actually NO substances are "drugs." Calling substances "drugs" is like referring to striking workers as "scabs." It's biased terminology.
It is folly to put bureaucrats in charge of second-guessing drug prescriptions: what such bureaucrats are really doing is second-guessing the various philosophies of life which are presupposed by the way we use psychoactive drugs.
Americans love to blame drugs for all their problems. Young people were not dying in the streets when opiates were legal. The prohibition mindset is the problem, not drugs.
All drugs have potential positive uses for somebody, at some dose, in some circumstance, alone or in combination. To decide in advance that a drug is completely useless is an offense to reason and to human liberty.
The Petpedia website says that "German Shepherds need to have challenging jobs such as searching for drugs." How about searching for prohibitionists instead?
Aleister Crowley actually TRIED to get addicted to drugs and found he could not. These things are not inevitable. The fact that there are town drunkards does not mean that we should outlaw alcohol.
Drug warriors have taught us that honesty about drugs encourages drug use. Nonsense! That's just their way of suppressing free speech about drugs. Americans are not babies, they can handle the truth -- or if they cannot, they need education, not prohibition.
(up)