what the first episode of Rod Serling's 'Night Gallery' tells us about drugs
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
February 14, 2025
The first episode of Rod Serling's "Night Gallery" aired on December 16, 1970, and began with a Fritz Leiber story called "Dead Man." The plot concerned a young man who was able to "will" his body to manifest all sorts of diseases on a cue provided by the tapping pen of his hypnotist/doctor.
The youth quickly manifested first "endopulmonosis" and then "Verblen's disease" to the astonishment of the doctor's medical colleague who had been summoned to witness a demonstration. Eventually, the young man even manifested death itself, only to return from that state in response to another cue. Fortunately for the young man, he was also able to manifest good health and a final cue returned him to normal -- or rather to better than normal, as his default condition was one of ridiculously good health. That was how things were supposed to be. The young man was only meant to manifest illnesses for occasional demonstration purposes while otherwise enjoying robust health. Unfortunately, a love triangle was to intervene, after which all bets were off, but that's not important as far as this essay is concerned.
The point is that the doctor describes his protocol to a medical colleague as just an extreme example of a long-recognized phenomenon: namely, the correlation between mindset and health. If a person feels happy and has something to look forward to, they tend to resist illnesses altogether, or else to get over them more quickly than those without such happiness.
If Americans were not blinded by the inhumane philosophy of behaviorism, they would see that this correlation implies that outlawed drugs have a huge potential benefit that no one ever mentions: namely, the power to improve one's physical health simply by cheering a body up and giving it something to look forward to. This drug-inspired attitude improvement can help one fight real bodily illnesses, even if it cannot always totally conquer them as in the Leiber story. Attitude improvements have enormous potential for keeping patients out of clinics and hospitals, which is a blessing in and of itself, given the shameful proliferation of iatrogenic illnesses in such places. But American psychologists are blind to the power of strategic drug use to improve attitude1. Why? Because behaviorism tells them to ignore anything psychologically obvious when it comes to drug use, like patient happiness and laughter, and to look under a microscope instead to determine what is "really" going on with a patient.
This reminds me of the weird phenomenon of fearmongering to which an American is subjected as soon as they reach the age at which they're eligible to receive Medicare. Take me, for instance. After recently attaining that age, I was bombarded by my official Medicare provider, United Health Care, with phone calls about my health. They actually wanted to send a nurse to talk to me about my health needs and to get me scheduled for all sorts of procedures, according to a schedule reminiscent of one that might be followed by an anal-retentive car lover for their 2025 Toyota Rav 4.
They seem to believe that I have a goal of living forever.
This is not a sudden interest in my health, however, but rather a sudden interest in my Medicare dollars. Certainly, none of these folks were worried about my health before I qualified for Medicare. Besides, if they were really interested in my health, they would be pushing endlessly for the re-legalization 2 of drugs so that I could keep my mind positive and so avoid illnesses altogether. The fact that such health companies fail to do this shows that they know where the money is. They have a vested interest in denying the holistic lessons of drug use and toeing the drug-war line instead: the one that inhumanely insists that a substance that can be misused by an American young person for one reason, must not be used by anyone, anywhere, for any reason.
A more inhumane and hateful policy cannot be imagined. It leads to endless suffering, but fortunately for the Drug Warriors, this suffering occurs behind closed doors, and those who are thereby rendered hopeless and/or suicidal are not considered stakeholders in America's racist and imperialist Drug War3. Modern psychologists connive with this anti-scientific approach to drugs by embracing the long obsolete philosophy of behaviorism, one which is completely out of keeping with the latest findings in quantum physics and relativity. They behave as if only the parts matter and completely ignore the big picture. David Bohm criticized this modern penchant for fragmentation in academia in his 1980 essay collection entitled "Wholeness and the Implicate Order":
"A similar trend has already begun to dominate in psychology. Thus we arrive at the very odd result that in the study of life and mind, which are just the fields in which formative cause acting in undivided and unbroken flowing movement is most evident to experience and observation, there is now the strongest belief in the fragmentary atomistic approach to reality.4"
Discussion Topics
May 24, 2025
Attention Teachers and Professors: Brian is not writing these essays for his health. (Well, in a way he is, actually, but that's not important now.) His goal is to get the world thinking about the anti-democratic and anti-scientific idiocy of the War on Drugs. You can stimulate your students' brainwashed grey matter on this topic by having them read the above essay and then discuss the following questions as a group!
What does the Night Gallery episode tell us about the correlation between mindset and health?
What does this correlation imply about the potential benefits of psychoactive medicine?
What are the some of the potential physical benefits of attitude improvement?
What would healthcare companies do if they were really interested in our health?
Those who suffer silently are not stakeholders in drug policy debates. Explain.
If opium were legal, then most of the nostrums peddled by drug stores today would be irrelevant. (No wonder the drug war has staying power!)
The Partnership for a Drug Free America should be put on trial for having blatantly lied to Americans in the 1980s about drugs, while using our taxpayer money to do so!
My depression would disappear overnight if religiously intolerant America would just allow me to live as freely as Benjamin Franklin.
Most people think that drugs like cocaine, MDMA, LSD and amphetamines can only be used recreationally. WRONG ! This represents a very naive understanding of human psychology. We deny common sense in order to cater to the drug war orthodoxy that "drugs have no benefits."
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.
The existence of a handful of bad outcomes of drug use does not justify substance prohibition... any more than the existence of drunkards justifies a call for liquor prohibition.
We won't know how hard it is to get off drugs until we legalize all drugs that could help with the change. With knowledge and safety, there will be less unwanted use. And unwanted use can be combatted creatively with a wide variety of drugs.
I've always wondered why we don't just let heroin users be -- or better yet, re-legalize drugs and give them choices. Why are they punished for using heroin daily while we praise 1 in 4 women for taking an even more dependence-causing drug every day of their life?
Racist drug warriors make cities dangerous with drug prohibition -- then they use that danger as an excuse to send in the National Guard.
Now the US is bashing the Honduran president for working with "drug cartels." Why don't we just be honest and say why we're REALLY upset with the guy? Drugs is just the excuse, as always, now what's the real reason? Stop using the drug war to disguise American foreign policy.
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)