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.
When the FDA tells us in effect that MDMA is too dangerous to be used to prevent school shootings and to help bring about world peace, they are making political judgments, not scientific ones.
Science knows nothing of the human spirit and of the hopes and dreams of humankind. Science cannot tell us whether a given drug risk is worthwhile given the human need for creativity and passion in their life. Science has no expertise in making such philosophical judgements.
The December Scientific American features a story called "The New Nuclear Age," about a trillion-dollar plan to add 100s of ICBM's to 5 states, which an SA editorial calls "kick me" signs. This Neanderthal plan comes from pols who think that compassion-boosting drugs are evil!
There are definitely good scientists out there. Unfortunately, they are either limited by their materialist orthodoxy into showing only specific microscopic evidence or they abandon materialism for the nonce and talk the common psychological sense that we all understand.
The DEA conceives of "drugs" as only justifiable in some time-honored ritual format, but since when are bureaucrats experts on religion? I believe, with the Vedic people and William James, in the importance of altered states. To outlaw such states is to outlaw my religion.
If NIDA covered all drugs (not just politically ostracized drugs), they'd produce articles like this: "Aspirin continues to kill hundreds." "Penicillin misuse approaching crisis levels." "More bad news about Tylenol and liver damage." "Study revives cancer fears from caffeine."
The best harm reduction strategy would be to re-legalize opium and cocaine. We would thereby end depression in America and free Americans from their abject reliance on the healthcare industry.
The front page of every mycology club page should feature a protest of drug laws that make the study of mycology illegal in the case of certain shrooms. But no one protests. Their silence makes them drug war collaborators because it serves to normalize prohibition.
I might as well say that no one can ever be taught to ride a horse safely. I would argue as follows: "Look at Christopher Reeves. He was a responsible and knowledgeable equestrian. But he couldn't handle horses. The fact is, NO ONE can handle horses!"
The proof that psychedelics work has always been extant. We are hoodwinked by scientists who convince us that efficacy has not been "proven." This is materialist denial of the obvious.
When the FDA tells us in effect that MDMA is too dangerous to be used to prevent school shootings and to help bring about world peace, they are making political judgments, not scientific ones.
