How to create a billion-dollar industry in three easy steps
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
December 5, 2022
How to create a billion-dollar industry in three easy steps:
Ban laudanum and all other drugs with which human beings have ever or could ever 'self-medicate'1
List all of the psychological problems that result from this ban as discrete illnesses in a Diagnostic Statistical Manual
Treat these illnesses with expensive and inadequate medicines, preferably those that cause chemical dependency
Congratulations. You have created a new industry. It's called psychiatry!
Follow-up steps:
Tell the world that drugs not prescribed by psychiatrists are just "crutches."
Teach the world that "self-medicating" is the worst possible medical sin.
If someone uses non-psychiatric drugs, tell them that they are doing so to run away from hidden pain.
Tell troublesome patients that they have a medical duty to keep taking their "meds"
Note that the preceding formulas can also help you keep the citizen's mind off of social problems by blaming all such problems on "drugs." No more need to invest in pesky programs like education and inner-city infrastructure. Just invoke the eternal problem of "drugs" and you can jail the adults whom you failed to properly educate as kids, thereby reaping the rewards of your racism without being held accountable for it.
Prohibition yanked laudanum from our medicine cabinets, ostensibly to prevent excess drug use. And where has that gotten us today? 80 million Americans (1 in every 4) now take psychiatric drugs every day of their life. (source: Citizens Commission on Human Rights International)
Editor's Comments:
May 23, 2025
Brian is painting in broad strokes here in order to inspire discussion. He actually thinks psychiatrists are great -- to the extent that they are empathic. But he feels that they are caught up in a behaviorist field that downplays the importance of common-sense psychology. If this were not the case, then psychiatrists would be shouting from the rooftops on behalf of their clients' right to use the many godsend medicines that have been outlawed wholesale by drug prohibition. Instead, most psychiatrists speak of their arsenal of materialist medicines as if they were good in and of themselves. This is like a chef working in a world in which the government has outlawed all meals except for clam chowder. The chef insists on the endless health benefits of his clam chowder, never mentioning the fact that all alternative meals have been outlawed. The chef may even claim that his soup is the best meal in the world. And why not? All the other meals have been outlawed so there is no opportunity for anyone to prove that the chef is wrong.
"My faith votes and strives to outlaw religions that use substances of which politicians disapprove."
And where did politicians get the idea that irresponsible white American young people are the only stakeholders when it comes to the question of re-legalizing drugs??? There are hundreds of millions of other stakeholders: philosophers, pain patients, the depressed.
Imagine a world in which we were told about both the potential benefits AND the potential harms of drugs like cocaine and opium.
Self-medicating has always been the most basic of human rights, until the medical industry demonized the practice for obvious financial reasons.
The best long-term treatment for OUD would be to normalize the nightly smoking of opium at home, not to addict the user to government-supplied drugs that render them impervious to the benefits of the poppy plant.
If America cannot exist without outlawing drugs, then there is something wrong with America, not with drugs.
I don't have a problem with CBD. But I find that many people like it for the wrong reasons: they assume there is something slightly "dirty" about getting high and that all "cures" should be effected via direct materialist causes, not holistically a la time-honored tribal use.
All drugs have positive uses at some dose, for some reason, at some time -- but prohibitionists have the absurd idea that drugs can be voted up or down. This anti-scientific notion deprives the modern world of countless godsends.
I have dissed MindMed's new LSD "breakthrough drug" for philosophical reasons. But we can at least hope that the approval of such a "de-fanged" LSD will prove to be a step in the slow, zigzag path toward re-legalization.
"I can take this drug that inspires me and makes me compassionate and teaches me to love nature in its byzantine complexity, or I can take Prozac which makes me unable to cry at my parents' funeral. Hmm. Which shall it be?" Only a mad person in a mad world would choose SSRIs.
(up)