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.
Drug use is judged by different standards than any other risky activity in the western world. One death can lead to outrage, even though that death might be statistically insignificant.
The DEA is a Schedule I agency. It has no known positive uses.
Scientists are not the experts on psychoactive medicines. The experts are painters and artists and spiritualists -- and anyone else who simply wants to be all they can be in life. Scientists understand nothing of such goals and aspirations.
In America, they save the depressed from cocaine and opium by turning them into patients for life with dependence-causing "meds." Now 30-year-old doctors get to treat 67-year-olds like children, with new visits every damn three months.
Kids should be taught beginning in grade school that drug prohibition is wrong.
"In consciousness dwells the wondrous, with it man attains the realm beyond the material, and the peyote tells us where to find it." --Antonin Arnaud
Most substance withdrawal would be EASY if drugs were re-legalized and we could use any substance we wanted to mitigate negative psychological effects.
The fact that some drugs can be addictive is no reason to outlaw drugs. It is a reason to teach safe use and to publicize all the ways that smart people have found to avoid unwanted pharmacological dependency -- and a reason to use drugs to fight drugs.
If we let "science" decide about drugs, i.e. base freedom on health concerns, then tea can be as easily outlawed as beer. The fact that horses are not illegal shows that prohibition is not about health. It's about the power to outlaw certain "ways of being in the world."
All of our problems with opioids and opiates could have been avoided had the busybody Chicken Littles in America left well enough alone and let folks continue to smoke regulated opium peaceably in their own homes.
(up)