The Drug War Philosopher of the United States of America -- session 3
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
June 2, 2025
Ladies and gentlemen, the Drug War Philosopher of the United States of America.
I will make a brief statement and then I will open up the floor to termites. As you know, I have been reading and reviewing the excellent drug histories of Mike Jay1 with an eye toward the philosophical insights that his books either contain or imply. The conclusions that I have drawn to date may be found in the following three essays: End Drug Prohibition Now, The Kangaroo Courts of Modern Science and most recently, How the West turned the world into a police state.
Mr. Philosopher! Mr. Philosopher! Telvar Pipkin from the Tennessee Teapot.
Not THE Telvar Pipkin?
That's right.
From THE Tennessee Teapot?
The same.
Well, I have not officially opened the floor to termites yet, but go ahead, Telvar.
Sorry, but I just have to know: which of Mike Jay's books have you read so far?
Well, I began with Emperors of Dreams2, which I discussed in two essays: namely, the one entitled End Prohibition Now3 and the other entitled The Kangaroo Courts of Modern Drug Science4.
Gotcha.
I have also read Psychonauts: Drugs and the Making of the Modern Mind5, which I discuss in the essay entitled How the West Turned the World into a Police State6.
Vespar Latigan from the Daily World Telegraph and Community Ledger Star, weekend edition.
Cor blimey.
What is your chief takeaway thus far from reading Mike's historical tomes about drugs and drug use?
The biggest takeaway message is that the Drug War mindset was firmly entrenched in the 19th century.
Oh, really? How so?
There was already a knee-jerk belief that the only answer to drug-related problems was criminalization.
I see.
Nobody stopped to think that the world was full of psychoactive substances -- and that the number of such substances would only increase over time as we westerners slowly open our eyes to the psychoactive powers of flowers, trees, plants, animals and fungi -- not to mention the endless drugs that can be synthesized based on the biochemical clues that we garner from Mother Nature.
I hear ya.
It never occurred to anyone that the world would become a police state if we decided to have the police and military playing "whack-a-mole" with this potentially endless supply of psychoactive medicines.
So you're saying, then, that no one talked about educating people rather than arresting them?
Bingo. And that's crazy, right? Already in the 19th century, there was this crazy idea that we should judge the value of drugs "up" or "down," based on how we personally felt about their effects in specific, often notorious cases.. There was already this crazy idea that a substance that could be misused by white young people at one dose when used for one reason, must not be used by anyone at any dose for any reason. It is impossible to think of a more anti-scientific approach to drugs. It is an approach which mindlessly rules out all beneficial uses of drugs in advance based on our biases against the kind of people whom one assumes are using them.
Cash Cheslock from the Hackensack Soundboard.
Cash WHO? From the WHAT?
Inquiring minds want to know, Mr. Philosopher, what other essays have you written or updated lately?
Lord, help my memory. Well, let's see: do you remember that 2022 harangue of mine called "Drug Warriors can go to hell!7"?
Oh, you mean the one in which you let Drug Warriors have it for depriving you of godsend medicines for an entire lifetime?
That's the one.
Mr. Philosopher, Madeline Hayball from the East Hampstead Express and Daily Record, weekend supplement.
Oh, I LOVE that supplement!
My sources tell me that you have updated your article about "The Truth about Opium89" by William H. Brereton and that you have added dozens of insightful citations from the three lectures that it contains.
Did you say thwee?
Oh, you know what I mean!
I'm just kidding you. Yes, I have highlighted dozens of insightful citations from that lecture series, far more than just thwee of them.
Oh, you!
Ladies and gentlemen, the Drug War Philosopher of the United States of America.
If religious liberty existed, we would be able to use the inspiring phenethylamines created by Alexander Shulgin in the same way and for the same reasons as the Vedic people of India used soma.
Scientists are responsible for endless incarcerations in America. Why? Because they fail to denounce the DEA lie that psychoactive substances have no positive medical uses.
Immanuel Kant wrote that scientists are scornful about metaphysics yet they rely on it themselves without realizing it. This is a case in point, for the idea that euphoria and visions are unhelpful in life is a metaphysical viewpoint, not a scientific one.
It's always wrong to demonize drugs in the abstract. That's anti-scientific. It begs so many questions and leaves suffering pain patients (and others) high and dry. No substance is bad in and of itself.
The depressed Canadian Claire Brosseau wants the state to kill her. This is the same state that refuses to let her use drugs that could make her want to live. https://abolishthedea.com/drug_use_is_not_worse_than_death
If anyone manages to die during an ayahuasca ceremony, it is considered a knockdown argument against "drugs." If anyone dies during a hunting club get-together, it is considered the victim's own damn fault.
The Thomas Jefferson Foundation is a drug war collaborator. They helped the DEA confiscate Thomas Jefferson's poppy plants in 1987.
We might as well fight for justice for Christopher Reeves: he was killed because someone was peddling that junk that we call horses. The question is: who sold Christopher that horse?! Who encouraged him to ride it?!
Materialist scientists are drug war collaborators. They are more than happy to have their fight against idealism rigged by drug law, which outlaws precisely those substances whose use serves to cast their materialism into question.
We throw people out of jobs for using "drugs," we praise them for using "meds." The categories are imaginary, made up by politicians who want to demonize certain substances, but not cigs or beer.
(up)