in response to a 2015 Vice article by Adam Rothstein
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
May 15, 2025
In his 2015 article about Erowid1 in Vice magazine, Adam Rothstein makes the following bizarre claim:
"Erowid wouldn't pass peer-review standards for medical science journals—and perhaps not even the objectivity-standards of Wikipedia." 2
What? Whatever gave Adam the idea that peer-review journals are objective when it comes to drugs - let alone that Wikipedia is? Such sources are enormously biased because they focus almost exclusively on abuse and misuse and scarcely at all on the godsend potentials of outlawed medicines.
Consider the following description of a "trip" on morphine as quoted from "A Tale of the Ragged Mountains" by Edgar Allan Poe.
"In the meantime the morphine had its customary effect- that of enduing all the external world with an intensity of interest. In the quivering of a leaf- in the hue of a blade of grass- in the shape of a trefoil- in the humming of a bee- in the gleaming of a dew-drop- in the breathing of the wind- in the faint odors that came from the forest- there came a whole universe of suggestion- a gay and motley train of rhapsodical and immethodical thought.3"
This is the description of an enormously positive upside of morphine 4 use - its ability to help us to cultivate a deep appreciation of Mother Nature - and yet how often do peer-review journals trumpet such benefits as something to investigate and to take advantage of for the benefit of humankind? Answer: Never. The materialist scientists start their cost-benefit analyses about such drugs by first dogmatically ignoring all such glaringly obvious benefits of use! This is not objectivity. This is dogmatic blindness.
Consider the following descriptions of the use of phenethylamines as recorded in Pihkal by Alexander Shulgin5:
"I experienced the desire to laugh hysterically at what I could only describe as the completely ridiculous state of the entire world."
"I feel that it is one of the most profound and deep learning experiences I have had."
"I find that I can just slightly redirect my attention so that it applies more exactly to what I am doing. I feel that I can learn faster. This is a `smart' pill!"
"I acknowledged a rapture in the very act of breathing."
Again, these are enormous drug benefits! But the materialist scientists of our peer-review journals approach such anecdotes like Dr. Spock of Star Trek, completely unimpressed and eager to get back to their microscopes.
To be objective means to be fair and to be open to ALL evidence - and not just the stuff that casts drugs in a suspicious light. It is clear, therefore, that Erowid is far more objective about drugs than peer-review journals, to say nothing of the brainwashed mainstream on Wikipedia, which has been shielded for a lifetime from positive news about drugs thanks to media censorship. Scientists are passion-scorning behaviorists67 when it comes to psychology and so they feel free to ignore anecdote, history and common sense when evaluating drugs. This is not objectivity on their part; it is rather a sign that they have an agenda when it comes to drugs: a materialist agenda to dismiss obvious drug benefits out of hand in the name of behaviorist principles - which is "convenient," as the Church Lady would say, because it allows them to toe the Drug War party line that drugs have no benefits and so absolves them of what would otherwise be their moral duty to speak up against the science-stopping public policy known as drug prohibition.
Objective? We are talking about scientists who actually promote brain-damaging shock therapy for the depressed but will not approve of drugs that would make such brain damage unnecessary8. Objective? We are talking about scientists who cannot find anything but abuse potential in the kinds of drugs that have inspired entire religions9. Objective? We are talking about scientists who cannot even figure out if laughing gas could help the depressed10. Laughing gas, for God's sake! In an objective world, we would give laughing gas kits to the suicidal, just as we now give epi pens to those with severe allergies. Instead of doing so, our scientists have stood by as the government seeks to treat laughing gas 11 like a "drug," thus making it even less practical to use than ever, this despite the fact that William James encouraged philosophers to use the substance to investigate the nature of perception and reality12.
The idea that scientists are objective about drugs in the age of the Drug War is completely false. To the contrary, today's scientists live in a make-believe world: they pretend that the kinds of godsend drug benefits mentioned above do not even exist. That's why magazines like Science News and Scientific American keep telling us that depression is tough to beat, failing to mention that we have outlawed all the substances that could do just that, and not in weeks, months, or years, either, but in mere seconds. But then we have all been taught since grade school that we are eternal children when it comes to drugs and so will never be able to use them wisely for the benefit of humanity. And our scientists help support this defeatist attitude by pretending that the benefits in question do not even exist. Far from being objective, then, today's scientists are helping to normalize drug prohibition by gaslighting 13 us about obvious benefits of drug use. That's why I say thank God for Erowid, the only source that treats the subject of drug use objectively by discussing both the potential dangers of drugs AND their many common-sense benefits.
Americans heap hypocritical praise on Walt Whitman. What they don't realize is that many of us could be "Walt Whitman for a Day" with the wise use of psychoactive drugs. To the properly predisposed, morphine gives a DEEP appreciation of Mother Nature.
Had we really wanted to "help" users, we would have used the endless godsends of Mother Nature and related synthetics to provide spirit-lifting alternatives to problem use. But no one wanted to treat users as normal humans. They wanted to pathologize and moralize their use.
My depression would disappear overnight if religiously intolerant America would just allow me to live as freely as Benjamin Franklin.
This is why it's wrong to dismiss drugs as "good" or "bad." There are endless potential positive uses to psychoactive drugs. That's all that we should ask of them.
The goal of drug-law reform should be to outlaw prohibition. Anything short of that, and our basic rights will always be subject to veto by fearmongers. Outlawing prohibition would restore the Natural Law of Jefferson, which the DEA scorned in 1987 with its raid on Monticello.
Someday, the First Lady or Man will tell kids to "just say no to prohibition." Kids who refuse will be required to watch hours' worth of films depicting gun violence, banned religions, civil wars, and adults committing suicide for want of medicine that grows at their very feet.
This is why "rock stars" use drugs: not just for performance anxiety (which, BTW, is a completely UNDERSTANDABLE reason for drug use), but because they want to fully experience the music, even tho' they may be currently short on money and being hassled by creditors, etc.
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!!!
All drugs have positive uses at some dose, for some reason, at some time -- but prohibitionists have the absurd idea that drugs can be voted up or down. This anti-scientific notion deprives the modern world of countless godsends.
We should start taking names. All politicians and government officials who work to keep godsends like psilocybin from the public should be held to account for crimes against humanity when the drug war finally ends.
Unless otherwise indicated, no AI is used in the creation of site content. These essays represent the original ideas of their author and not the ideas that the author SHOULD have based on an algorithmic parsing of existing data. For more on this subject, consider the AI-related viewpoints to which the author subscribes as delineated in the New York Times opinion piece entitled "What 370,000 College Essays Tell Us About A.I.’s Effects on Creativity" by Rebecca Winthrop of the Brookings Institution.
(up)