As you know, I frequently talk about my own situation regarding antidepressants and psilocybin, etc. But let's get something straight: I do not want anybody's pity, okay? I know plenty of people who have it far worse than myself. I only mention autobiographical facts because they demonstrate how the Drug War is inhumane and keeping me from being all that I can be in life. When you hear my story, please think of the millions of others who are going through the same thing, even if they may be unaware of the precise sociocultural forces that are holding them back in life. I especially dislike the imputation of such pity, namely, the idea that I am somehow biased against ECT or antidepressants because of my own experience, and that I am therefore embittered and cannot think straight. I do not want my just indignation about the status quo to be pathologized in that way. I am not writing just for myself but for the hundreds of millions around the world who go without powerful effective medicines because of the hateful and anti-scientific War on Drugs. And if you do not know why the Drug War is anti-scientific, read my website, please. I've answered that question dozens of times now in hundreds of essays over the last five years.
Just a little housekeeping now, and we'll be done.
[vacuum cleaner buzzes past lectern]
Frieda Wolff there on vacuum cleaner, ladies and gentlemen. Okay, first question. You, sir, in the Bengal stripes.
Mr. Philosopher, I'm Clarence Hambone from the Kentucky Crawler.
What up, Boney!
Mr. Philosopher, there are those who say that you are being hypocritical.
How so?
You say that drugs are neither good nor bad and yet you diss antidepressant drugs every chance you get.
Ah, yes, it's an understandable confusion because there's a subtle point involved here. You see, I have no desire to outlaw antidepressants. Nor would I ever suggest that they have no potential positive uses whatsoever. Who knows? At some dose, for some people, in some situations they may indeed be a godsend.
Yes, but—
So I do not hate antidepressants per se. What I am saying is that it makes no sense to prescribe such drugs in the way that they are being prescribed today. We have a nation of Stepford Wives, Boney, insofar as 1 in 4 American women are dependent on antidepressants for life. Do you realize how disempowering that is, to become a ward of the healthcare state? How expensive? How time-wasting? Moreover, these pills do not allow these people to live large, but at their very best they simply make life livable. And really, are 25% of American women really so depressed that they would kill themselves without these drugs? If that's the case, then there is something wrong with America and not with American women. As for the nationwide silence on this enormous dystopia, which is, after all, the biggest mass pharmacological dependency of all time, it is understandable considering the billions generated by the status quo, thanks to which neither scientists nor psychiatrists (nor even Rick Doblin, for that matter) are eager to point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes.
Yes, but—
And, pardon me, but you just cannot fully grasp the absurdity of the War on Drugs until you realize that society does not merely tolerate all this daily drug-taking but we actually encourage it: hence the modern suburban trope: "Don't forget to take your meds!"
But—
At the same time, I take folks at their word when they say that antidepressants work for them personally. Indeed, my sister and brother both say so, but that just makes me feel sorry for them. I am sure that those who say that have no idea of the transformative potential of drugs like LSD and psilocybin. If they did, they would be demanding much more from their medicines. And even non-entheogens like cocaine and opium could put a spring in their step without addicting them - though of course they've been brainwashed to believe that they will always be infants when it comes to such "drugs." And what if they became dependent on opium or coca by choice - or even by accident? Why is that so much worse than becoming dependent on an antidepressant that does not let you live your chosen life?
Yes, but—
Or maybe they demand much less from their life in general than I do. If that's the case, fine, but please do not let your own low ambitions in life limit my own ability to live large.
Yes, but—
And by prescribing these drugs en masse for all complaints of depression (as if human beings were interchangeable widgets), women are not only turned into patients for life, but they are actually prevented from using the godsend medicines that are now appearing on the scene thanks to the psychedelic renaissance.
How's that?
Folks who use antidepressants are typically not allowed to participate in psychedelic drug trials. They are also generally not allowed to take part in psilocybin therapy or ayahuasca ceremonies and so forth. And why not? Because of an overblown fear of a very rare reaction known as serotonin syndrome, said to be caused by combining antidepressants with psychedelic drugs.
This is hugely ironic because the people who are most deserving of benefits from the psychedelic renaissance turn out to be the very people who are not allowed to benefit from psychedelics at all. And yet whenever I start acting up and demanding that psychiatry help those like myself whom they have rendered chemically dependent for life, at best I receive mock pity, and at worst I get told to "keep taking my meds." Incidentally, that's why I consider antidepressants to be tranquilizers. Because whenever folks are acting up and causing problems, we tell them to "take their meds," or in other words, we tell them to calm down - not for their own benefit but for our own. And it's no coincidence that that's what ECT is all about: calming down the patient, not so that they can live large personally, but so that their caretakers can stop pulling their own hair out when trying to care for them.
Your critics also point out that drugs like MDMA, which you praise, have downsides as well.
Of course they have downsides. MDMA can tire you out. But what the critics forget is that there are ways to deal with that fatigue, by fighting drugs with drugs. There are nutrients that can be used. For more on this, read "Listening to Ecstasy" by Charley Wininger. But the Drug War has taught us to judge drugs "up" or "down," outside of all context, drugs by themselves, regardless of dosage, concomitants, and attitudes. Neither MDMA nor antidepressants are good or bad, in and of themselves. They are, as best we know, inanimate objects, and no mere thing is good or bad in and of itself.
Confusion also arises because all statements in the English language are elliptical, as philosopher Alfred North Whitehead taught us. A person's statements can only be fully understood by taking into account obvious facts or common presuppositions that are not explicitly stated. When I say, "You are old," for instance, I mean something like, "You are old given the way that we judge the human lifespan..., etc." So if I ever have been so inexact as to say something like "antidepressants are bad," it is really shorthand for the proposition that "antidepressants are bad as they are being used today." I am not saying, as Drug Warriors do, that a drug can be bad in and of itself, without regard for circumstances of use; I am saying rather that its current manner of use is counterproductive and inappropriate given the many alternatives that are available. And if those alternatives are illegal, psychiatrists should be the first people to stand up and loudly complain about that fact, both individually and as a group. Instead, they generally pretend that the antidepressants that they have on offer are somehow good "in and of themselves," that they would be the best treatment even if hundreds of other outlawed alternatives were suddenly available. They thereby imply that prohibition is no big deal because they already have a wonder cure for depression, thank you very much. And that, of course, is nothing more than a self-interested lie.
But then why do you talk about godsend drugs?
When I refer to a drug as a godsend, that too is an elliptical statement. I assume that my reader will understand that I am calling it a "potential godsend." I am saying that, ahem, "I know from user reports and history books that said substances have been used in life-affirming ways for ages and that they could continue profiting humanity in similar ways absent government interference." But such compound assertions are verbose and pedantic, hence I resort to the shorthand of calling the psilocybin mushroom a godsend. Strictly speaking, however, even a magic mushroom can prove deadly if used in an irresponsible manner, whilst driving, say, or flying a plane. Of course, the Drug Warrior will attempt to parlay such potential dangers into a call for outlawing mushrooms - whilst I would reply that all drugs have positive and negative uses and that, again, drugs are never good or bad in and of themselves. This is one of the many reasons why we need education instead of incarceration.
Mr. Philosopher!
Yes, you, sir, in the two-piece lounge suit with stretch cotton.
Yes, sir—
No, yours is wool, sir, I believe. The guy behind you.
Oh.
Yes, Mr. Philosopher, I'm Buckleby Chucklesworth of the Canyon Bee.
I'll take your word for that.
You've been taken to task for essentially saying that "addictive types" do not exist. How do you respond?
Well, at first, I respond with indignant outrage at having been so monstrously misconstrued. [roar!]
And then?
Look, I have friends who have issues with this drug or that, and with alcohol too, right? And it's clear to me that they are prone to temptations to which I simply am not subjected in the same way. I like a good drink, for instance, but I seldom have the urge to overdo it. And I am not saying that to brag, but merely to point out that there are obvious predilections in the world that can help cause problems for people.
But until we start educating people and talking honestly about drugs and using drugs to FIGHT drugs, etc. etc... we simply cannot know how many people would "normally" have problems with drinks or drugs. We've outlawed all the substances and all the knowledge that could help people use drugs and liquor wisely. So it seems premature now to launch out on a search for scientific reasons why people have difficulty with drugs and alcohol. We should first look in the mirror if we want answers to that question. Jim Hogshire says that 10% of Americans used opium on a regular basis before the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914. They were then considered habitues. After 1914, they were suddenly considered addicts. Now, we could have launched a big study to find out why all those people had a strong urge to partake of opium, scanning their brains and drawing blood samples, or we could use common sense and say that the government created these addicts out of whole cloth.
But science, sir, science!
I am also very loath to blame addictive tendencies on a single gene or set of genes. Correlation does not mean causation. Just because a gene is correlated with addictive behavior does not mean that the genes themselves are the cause. We've been here before, remember, with this presumptuous reductionism. Science assumed that certain brain chemistry was associated with depression, and so they decided that a surgical attack on that chemistry would put things to rights. And look at the result. They created antidepressants thanks to which 1 in 4 American women are dependent on Big Pharma meds for life, while depression stats continue to rise. The scientists obviously intervened at the wrong spot in the causal chain when they sought to change brain chemistry to end depression. See, the problem is that materialism looks for easy cause-and-effect answers, whereas shamanic holism (that is to say the world view that we westerners have fiercely suppressed since the days of Pizarro) tells us that the human being is more than the sum of microscopic parts, that the big picture matters and, indeed, should come first.
And the label "addictive" is so often political in nature. When I was in my late teens, I pleaded with my psychiatrist to give me something that really made a positive difference in my life, and what was the result? They said I had better shut up or the prescribing doctor would label me as an addictive personality. In other words, anyone who complains about the niggardly offerings of psychiatry's miniscule pharmacy is going to be pathologized as an "addictive personality."
And let's talk about ketamine for a moment. I was on that drug for several months a few years ago, and I knew very soon that I wanted to use the drug far more frequently than was advised. I loved the dissociative experience. What peace of mind! I wanted to have a nightly escape from reality and relax for a good hour or so. Now, this could very easily have been labeled addictive behavior by an onlooker, but it was nothing of the kind. It was rather my very personality expressing itself, saying, in effect, "I want to live large and not be stymied by the negative thoughts that hold folks like myself back in life!" This may seem like addictive behavior to the George F. Babbitts of the world, those who are content with very little risk and excitement in life, but it was perfectly rational behavior for myself (given my particular childhood, my particular propensities, etc.). So many happy-go-lucky Americans find this unimaginable because they are totally unable to believe that their basic experience of life is different from that of their neighbors. Fortunately, I knew the limits of ketamine and the dangers of long-term use and so I soon cut back, which was made easy for me by two inconvenient truths: first, the fact that ketamine was enormously expensive and second, the fact that ketamine's potency decreases with frequent use.
That experience helped me better understand alcoholics and their desire for excess. I wanted to live large with ketamine, I wanted to feel better, I wanted to transcend my doubts, I wanted to thrive! And that should not be a crime. The crime is when we purposefully make that desire dangerous to fulfill by outlawing the knowledge and the drugs that could help people achieve that self-transcendence as safely and reliably as possible.
But the Drug Warrior wants to pathologize folks like myself for our seemingly extravagant desires and so they label us as "addictive personalities." Thus pathologized, we can be forced into drug-hating Christian Science rehab and told to rely on the thinly disguised Christian God that they call a "higher power." In this way, society enforces the drug-hating theology of Mary Baker Eddy as a kind of state religion. Drug use becomes the paradigmatic sin and the churchy rehab group is ready to receive the prodigal son. This is what passes for therapy in a Christian Science state. Whereas, in a free and humane society, we would be taught how to transcend ourselves safely, with a drug regimen that is contaminate-free and is maximally sustainable without any undue threat to life or limb.
Yes, the woman in the green pret-a-porter.
Me, sir?
Yes, Mrs. Savile Row there. Fire when ready.
Yes, sir, I'm Heller Wayler from the Pohaski Sun.
Indeed.
Mr. Philosopher, you recently flew off the handle when someone told you that all psychiatrists would prefer to undergo ECT for themselves.
I did nothing of the kind.
Did too!
Did not. I was shocked, however, to think that this might actually be the case. It reminded me of the conversation between Argan and his brother in "The Imaginary Invalid" by Moliere:
ARGAN: But doctors themselves must believe in the truth in their science since they use it on themselves.
BROTHER: That's because there are some in their number who suffer from the same delusion by which they profit. --The Imaginary Invalid by Moliere, produced by Yuri Rasovsky
You see, I have always tried to cut psychiatrist's slack, because I can hardly expect them to share my philosophical concerns about antidepressants. And yet the fact that they would allegedly prefer shock therapy themselves to the use of drugs tells me that they are completely bamboozled by Drug War ideology, for it is the Drug War which tells us that there is no help for these doctors (or for anybody else at all) in so called "drugs." Why? Because drugs are evil, don't you see? Which, as I have been at some pains to point out, is simply not the case.
Mr. Philosopher!
Mr. Philosopher!
Mr. Philosopher!
No further questions!
Author's Follow-up:
April 06, 2025
I must admit that I was a little antsy in re-reading this comedy routine of which I was guilty almost a year ago now. I fear that I may have not made some important points quite as emphatically as I might have done.
Take antidepressants, for instance. In writing such a sketch today, I would have better emphasized the fact that there are two ways to think about almost every social topic of our time: in light of drug prohibition and in willful ignorance of such prohibition. Almost every American author or pundit chooses the latter option: they come at all topics -- social and psychological -- under the assumption that the Drug War simply does not exist, or rather that drug prohibition is a natural baseline from which we can draw authoritative conclusions about the world around us.
These people pretend that we live in a world in which there are simply no alternatives to Big Pharma antidepressants. That assumption makes a huge difference, of course. In such a world, it would be easy to "sign off" on antidepressants -- for the simple reason that such drugs are the only game in town when it comes to fighting depression, especially in a world in which talk therapy -- or at least talk therapy by itself -- has gone out of fashion. We might quibble about the vast numbers of users of such drugs and claim that many could go without, but it is hard to argue against antidepressant use in general in a world wherein we assume that there are no pharmacological alternatives.
But there is another way to look at antidepressant use, namely, in light of the fact that America has outlawed all obvious alternatives, many of which inspire and elate, and some of which have inspired entire religions, as Soma did the Hindu religion. Now, as a practical matter, a severely depressed person might still end up on Big Pharma antidepressants in such a world, but my point is that they should only "go there" while kicking and screaming about the outrageous injustice of a system that outlaws time-honored godsends while simultaneously turning them into a ward of the healthcare state and an eternal patient!
What's more, the psychiatrist should be kicking and screaming on behalf of the patient, protesting the drug prohibition that led to this outrage, rather than pretending that antidepressants are good in and of themselves, regardless of drug prohibition -- as if, out of the endless list of drugs that they have outlawed, our pharmacologically clueless politicians just happened to legalize the one kind of drug that actually works -- nay, that is a wonder drug. Is it not far more likely that these drug-hating politicians have outlawed far better alternatives, given that many of the outlawed drugs are of the kind that have inspired entire religions!
Anyone who praises antidepressants in light of this prohibitionist backstory must be a materialist -- for the Drug War has outlawed all substances that treat depression holistically. These materialists like the Drug War "in their heart of hearts" because it outlaws all but materialist "cures" for depression.
I also would like to double down on why the materialist approach is wrong: namely, because it looks for one single biochemical input to depression and seeks to change things by surgically intervening to "fix" it biochemically -- whereas the healthy and happy state, the state whose attainment would constitute a cure for depression, is an outcome of a wide variety of forces: it is a balance of factors: factors of a biological, psychological and genetic nature. To merely change one biochemical element of this mix and pronounce a depression cured is nonsense. Moreover, it raises a serious question: why is a chemist deciding what constitutes a "cure" for depression in the first place, a chemist who knows nothing of my hopes and dreams in life, of my ambitions? Where do they derive their expertise in deciding how a depressed person like myself should actually feel about themselves and about life? And why are they making a one-size-fits-all decision about such things?
The answer is all too obvious: they are doing so to further the interests of the pharmaceutical companies to move product and NOT in order to help the depressed to live the sorts of lives that they themselves desire!
"The mere study of Chemistry qualifies a man to become an apothecary, but not a philosopher." --Arthur Schopenhauer, from "On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason"1
Also, let me address that insane alleged factoid about psychiatrists and electroshock therapy. I once received a Tweet that advised me that most psychiatrists would LIKE to have electroshock therapy if they became severely depressed.
This is BIZARRE!
If this is true, it can only mean that the Drug War has successfully protected psychiatrists from learning anything about the well-documented beneficial uses of drugs. They certainly have never read the book "Pihkal," which is full of positive drug-use reports. They certainly have never read the works of William James, in which he cites the heaven-like states afforded by the use of laughing gas. They certainly have never heard of the Hindu religion, which owes its existence to a drug that inspires and elates.
Imagine what they are saying here, if this story is true: They would rather have their brains damaged by materialist science than to use drugs that have inspired depression-busting user reports like the following that appeared in the 1991 book "Pihkal" by chemist Alexander Shulgin2:
"It was a glorious feeling, and beauty was everywhere enhanced. With eyes closed it felt marvelous, and it was appealing to pursue the inner experience."
"Tremendous feeling of confidence in life and the life process. Complete sense of
resolution."
"A glimpse of what true heaven is supposed to feel like... "
I ask myself, how can these psychiatrists prefer frying their brains to using the kinds of drugs that elicited the above responses.
My guess (and hope) is that they are merely unaware of such documented drug experiences -- or that they have somehow never stopped to consider the significance of such potential drug use in their personal life. I am guessing that the Drug War propaganda of censorship has kept them from ever thinking of the politically created category of "drugs" as consisting of any beneficial substances whatsoever.
I fear, however, that there is another sinister presupposition at work here: namely, the materialist presupposition that merely feeling good and happy is somehow of no use to the depressed -- that such people have to be "really" cured by the kind of one-size-fits-all biochemical intervention mentioned above. I trust the reader can see what is going on here. Because severe depression has been placed in the DSM as a discrete and unique "illness," the psychiatrists consider depression to have been thereby "reified" into a thing apart. It is no longer just an emotional state that can be treated as such with common sense -- it is now a sort of biochemical configuration that must be approached from a behaviorist point of view.
Even Alexander Shulgin seems to share this bizarre view in his non-qualitative notes in Pihkal. This stunned me, to be honest. Here I was, reading page after page of results that I personally "would have died for," being something of a chronic depressive myself, reports of users experiencing empathy and compassion and ecstasy and a new sense of purpose. And then suddenly, in a kind of "note to self," the chemist would make it clear that in his opinion, these results told him very little about what drugs would work for the depressed. As if the depressed were creatures from Mars and not his fellow human beings, subject to the same emotional incentives as Alex. It was not enough merely to cheer folks like myself up and give us states of joy to look forward to: no, one had to "cure" Martians like myself in a way that could be quantified and formulated in a one-size-fits-all pill -- presumably one that I would take daily and not simply use once a month for the purposes of aesthetic and philosophical inspiration.
I fear that the Tweeter in question may have been correct: that most psychiatrists would indeed desire shock therapy were they to become deeply depressed. But consider what this means about the War on Drugs. Just think how thoroughly the Drug Warrior has succeeded in making us dismiss the benefits of psychoactive medicine out of hand: to the point that we would actually prefer to have our brain purposefully damaged than to use drugs that inspire and elate!
This is yet another reason why I have often said that the Drug War represents the inversion of healthy and common sense values.
What if I were to become hopelessly depressed as well?
While my depressed materialist counterparts were having their brains purposefully damaged by shock therapy, you'd find me using the phenethylamines synthesized by Alexander Shulgin and/or smoking opium a la Marcus Aurelius and/or using laughing gas a la William James.
That's providing, of course, that I had the guts to do the right thing for my mental health in spite of unprecedented and infamous laws crafted by racist politicians.
But I can assure you of one thing, folks: I will pass on the brain damage! Thanks just the same.
PS The "factoid" may very well be true. The FDA certainly thinks shock therapy is a godsend for depression3. This is the same FDA that can find no uses for drugs that elate and inspire -- the same FDA that signs off on the dependence-causing psychiatric pill mill -- the same FDA that approves of Big Pharma drugs whose advertised side effects include death itself.
This is Christian Science on steroids. Apparently ANYTHING is better than the use of "drugs," anything at all.
To think what drug-war propaganda has wrought!
To paraphrase William Shirer from his classic book about Hitler:
"No one who has not lived for years in a DRUG WAR SOCIETY can possibly conceive how difficult it is to escape the dread consequences of a regime's calculated and incessant propaganda.4"
One can scarcely go far enough in attacking such brainwashed insanity. I would, in fact, claim that it is a crime against humanity to use brain-damaging treatments like shock therapy when we know full well that there are substances in the world that inspire and elate, as is crystal clear from the drug user reports that follow from "Pihkal" by Alexander Shulgin:
"More than tranquil, I was completely at peace, in a beautiful, benign, and placid place."
"The entire experience was exquisite. Next day, same sense of serene, quiet joy/beauty persisted for most of the day. A true healing potential."
"There is a profoundness of meaning inherent in anything that moves."
"Tremendous feeling of confidence in life and the life process. Complete sense of resolution."
Drug prohibition is clearly a crime against humanity for denying such experiences to the depressed -- and to everybody else, for that matter.
This is why America is creeping toward authoritarianism -- because of the prohibitionists' ability to get away with everything by blaming "drugs." The fact that Americans still fall for this crap represents a kind of collective pathology.
Every video about science and psilocybin is funny. It shows nerds trying to catch up with common sense. But psychedelics work, whether the FDA thinks so or not. It's proven by what James Fadiman calls "citizen science," i.e. everyday experience.
We have a low tolerance for the downsides of drug use only. We are fine with high risk levels for any other activity on earth. If drug warriors were serious about saving lives, they'd outlaw guns, free flying, free diving, and all pleasure trips to Mars.
The scheduling system is a huge lie designed to give an aura of "science" to America's colonialist disdain for indigenous medicines, from opium, to coca, to shrooms.
To understand why the western world is blind to the benefits of "drugs," read "The Concept of Nature" by Whitehead. He unveils the scientific schizophrenia of the west, according to which the "real" world is invisible to us while our perceptions are mere "secondary" qualities.
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.
There are a potentially vast number of non-addictive drugs that could be used strategically in therapy. They elate and "free the tongue" to help talk therapy really work. Even "addictive" drugs can be used non-addictively, prohibitionist propaganda notwithstanding.
Almost all addiction services assume that the goal should be to get off all drugs. That is not science, it is Christian Science.
First we outlaw all drugs that could help; then we complain that some people have 'TREATMENT-RESISTANT DEPRESSION'. What? No. What they really "have" is an inability to thrive because of our idiotic drug laws.
3:51 PM · Jul 15, 2024
Opium could be a godsend for talk therapy. It can help the user step outside themselves and view their problems from novel viewpoints.
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, The Drug War Philosopher of the United States of America: a press conference about the war on drugs, published on July 25, 2024 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)
You have been reading an article entitled, The Drug War Philosopher of the United States of America: a press conference about the war on drugs, published on July 25, 2024 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)
