The Trampled Rights of the Depressed in the age of Drug Prohibition
An open letter to Z. Lavallee and A.M. Gagné-Julien, authors of 'Affective injustice, sanism and psychiatry'
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
May 25, 2026
Dear Dr. Lavallee and Professor Gagné-Julien:
I have just read your excellent paper entitled "Affective injustice, sanism and psychiatry."1 As a 67-year-old chronic depressive, I believe I have a unique perspective on these issues that I would like to share.
You pose the following question in your paper: "How can we create greater justice for psychopathologized people?"
Given my life story, my answer to that question would be: "End drug prohibition and allow human beings to take care of their psychological health as they see fit."
This will, of course, seem like a bizarre opinion in the age of the Drug War, a time when the media simply will not publish stories about the benefits (potential, anecdotal, or historical) of demonized substances, even though some of them, like opium, have been considered panaceas since the time of Galen. As Thomas Szasz points out, "In Galenic practice the most useful medicine was a theriaca, or antidote, named Electuarium theriacale magnum, a compound composed of several ingredients, among them opium and wine."2
This censorship is thought to be "justified" by westerners because the reigning biochemical model of academia does not judge such substances holistically, but rather looks for efficacy under a microscope. This is why Dr. Robert Glatter had to ask in an article in Forbes magazine in 2021 whether laughing gas could help the depressed.3 Laughing gas. His answer seemed to be a conditional "no"; whereas common sense (which is to say an holistic analysis of the psychological effects of the gas) would tell us that laughing gas has prima facie potential to help the depressed, notwithstanding the west's indoctrinated tendency to think only of misuse and abuse when it comes to such substances. (The use of laughing gas changed the whole philosophical outlook of William James. He encouraged other philosophers to use such substances to learn about the nature of consciousness and reality.)
"Ethicists talk about the rights of patients, but they never talk about the right not to be a patient in the first place."
Whenever I write on this topic (which is almost daily), I experience what a feminist must have experienced in the 1930s and 1940s: namely, almost complete invisibility. Almost every academic or mainstream pundit ignores me. The few who bother to respond essentially tell me that I have no standing in the debate, that biochemical determinists are the experts on such matters, along with academicians who publish articles behind paywalls. I continue to insist, nonetheless, that I am a victim of drug prohibition, having been denied the right to heal by laws that have outlawed potential godsends. Drug prohibition has "saved" me from drugs like opium and cocaine by shunting me off onto drugs that turned out to be harder to kick than heroin, thereby turning me into a lifetime patient, one who has to see a doctor 1/3rd his age every three months of his life to receive a prescription for yet another refill of an expensive and under-performing "maintenance" drug. Ethicists talk about the rights of patients, but they never talk about the right not to be a patient in the first place. Yet the few who respond to my emails basically tell me to "shut up and take my meds."
You criticize "psychiatrization" as causing us to ignore systemic causes of distress. I believe that the most obvious example of this fact is that the psychiatric field has pathologized all the downsides that come from outlawing panaceas. Instead of seeing these downsides as the inevitable result of drug prohibition -- such as unnecessary depression and unnecessary anxiety and a general feeling of disempowerment in life -- we are told that these downsides are actual mental illnesses that psychiatry must treat. Surely we must ask the question "cui bono" about such a diagnosis. Surely, it's clear who is benefiting from seeing the world in this way.
This inability to see the downsides of drug prohibition for what they are has a body count, and I am not just talking about the suicides that must necessarily be brought about when a society outlaws all drugs that have the potential to inspire and elate. You may be familiar with the case of depressed Canadian Claire Brosseau.4 She is demanding her "right" to assisted suicide. In other words, she is demanding that the state use drugs to help her die, the same state that refuses to allow her to use drugs that could inspire her to live. Most westerners seem to be convinced that no such drugs exist, but that is only because they are unfamiliar with the whole taboo subject of drug benefits. There are hundreds of drugs that have the potential to inspire and elate, many of which we are only now learning about thanks to ethnobotanists -- and chemists like Alexander Shulgin who are given rare moments of freedom to study phenethylamines and tryptamines without government interference. Of course, the government jealously watches our advances in these areas, ready to intervene with laws to ensure that human beings never profit psychologically from discovered drugs.
Some of the rare books about drug benefits include: "Plants of the Gods," by ethnobotanist Richard Schultes 5, "Pihkal" by Alexander Shulgin6, "The Psychedelic Explorer" by James Fadiman 7, Drugs of the Dreaming: Oneirogens by Toro Gianluca 8, Food of the Gods: Terence McKenna 9, Opium for the Masses by Jim Hogshire10, The Truth about Opium by William Brereton11, and Coca and its Therapeutic Application by Angelo Mariani12.
Interestingly, however, there is no book that I know of that discusses the common-sense use of drugs in general from the point of view of non-determinist psychology, which is to say from an indigenous point of view. No book will, for instance, discuss the psychological benefits of the strategic use of a variety of substances in such a way as to avoid addiction while yet providing health-facilitating positive anticipation in one's life: anticipation, that is, of ecstatic or transcendent experiences. It is an article of faith with westerners that drugs can never be put to common-sense positive uses for humanity. In my view, however, this belief is philosophically identical to the "fire bad!" mentality of our prehistoric ancestors. Whether we say "drugs bad!" or "fire bad!", we are saying that we ought to fear dangerous substances rather than to learn how to use them as wisely as possible for the benefit of human beings.
"Self-interested doctors chose to focus only on misuse and abuse of drugs."
Your article suggests the need for marginalized communities to push back against the psychopathologizing of socially created problems. I am trying to do just that. Someday I hope that other med-dependent depressives will stand up as I am doing for their right to take care of their own health as they see fit. Until then, our depression will be ripe for pathologizing by the psychiatric establishment. It was not the depressed, after all, who decided that drugs like cocaine and opium could have no positive uses, it was self-interested doctors who chose to focus only on misuse and abuse, without regard for the millions who could have benefitted from wise use.
The Drug War is all about blaming drugs for social problems and as such is the prime example of the trend against which your paper is fighting, the attempt to normalize injustice through conservative hermeneutics, pathologization and the wholesale demonization of "drugs" without regard for dosage, quality, quantity or reason for use, etc. If drugs were really the cause of all evil, however, then history would be nothing but one long account of problematic drug use. This is not the case, however. Even the supposed problematic use of opium in China in the 19th century was hyped by self-interested protestant missionaries from Britain, who had nothing but contempt for the Chinese way of life and who saw opium smoking as preventing the Chinese from reading the Bible. See "The Truth about Opium" by William Brereton13, a book written during the heyday of the British Anti-Opium Society, in which the author rebuts the society's armchair arguments against opium smoking with quotes from the prominent British doctors of his time, including the British Surgeon General of Hong Kong.
Sincerely Yours,
Brian
abolishthedea.com
PS I wish I could attend the Workshop on the Philosophy of Mental Health coming up on Thursday in Montreal.14 I think in a sane world (a "drug-neutral world," that is), I would be considered a subject expert at such an event, given my 40+ years on the receiving end of the affective injustices about which you write. I have written hundreds of essays against drug prohibition from the point of view of a med-dependent patient over the last seven years. If you are one of the rare academics who does not think that I should "shut up and take my meds," I invite you to read a few of them at my website called The Drug War Philosopher @ abolishthedea.com.
"I am hopefully just the pioneer of an upcoming movement of pushback against drug prohibition."
PPS When America and England decided to outlaw "dangerous drugs" in the early 20th century, they were considering only one set of stakeholders: namely, those who might "abuse" the drugs. They totally ignored the fact that there were other stakeholders in the debate: like the hundreds of millions who could have benefited from wise use. Unfortunately, the goals of the puritanical Drug Warriors of the time dovetailed nicely with the financial needs of doctors, and so the rights of the depressed and pain patients were completely ignored. It is interesting that no one thought of launching a massive education campaign in response to substance misuse: the only fix for social problems in the public mind was criminalization. That's no surprise, however, because the motivation for drug prohibition, especially in the States, was undisguised racism and xenophobia. Meanwhile, the doctrine of biochemical determinism suggested that safe use of drugs was impossible, which was a completely ahistorical view, but one which doctors and addiction therapists had a financial interest in promulgating.
This is why I think that the best way to end drug prohibition would be for the depressed to insist that they are stakeholders in drug laws and that they have a fundamental right to heal. I am hopefully just the pioneer of an upcoming movement of pushback against drug prohibition -- which I hope will come not just from the depressed, but from academics as well, academics who will demand their right to study any substance on earth and draw any appropriate conclusions from that study without having to kowtow to the sensibilities of either Drug Warriors or biochemical determinists. Surely, science should be free in any country that claims to value freedom.
PPPS I have shared these concerns with Robert Whitaker of Mad in America. He does not believe that I have any standing. He thinks that only academics are experts on these matters. I am just a patient. Robert is there to help the depressed, not to learn from them. And yet I am the only one in the world who is pointing out that assisted suicide for the depressed cannot be discussed without discussing drug prohibition. I cannot believe that he will not let me share that message. I am the only one pointing out that school shootings cannot be discussed ethically without discussing the outlawing of entheogens that could teach compassion. I am the only one pointing out that Alzheimer's must be discussed in connection with drug prohibition, which outlaws substances that sharpen the brain and grow new neurons. I am the only one who protested to the FDA on behalf of the depressed and academic freedom against the outlawing of laughing gas. And yet I am completely ignored. This is the ultimate disempowerment and yet I am off the radar of academia. Robert wants the depressed to listen to the experts: in my view, that is just another way of telling us to "Shut up and take your meds," it's just that in this case the "meds" are metaphorical in nature.
Key Takeaways:
Justice for psychopathologized individuals requires the end of drug prohibition.
Drug efficacy is established under a microscope, not based on any obvious benefits.
Drug prohibition has outlawed the right to heal for the depressed.
Ethicists talk about the rights of patients, but never about the right not to be a patient in the first place.
Psychiatry turns the emotional downsides of drug prohibition into diseases.
Westerners are almost completely uneducated about drug benefits.
To say Drugs Bad is like saying Fire Bad!
The Drug War is about blaming drugs for social problems.
America and England outlawed drugs without considering any stakeholders but the irresponsible.
Doctors and addiction 'experts' have a financial interest in promoting biochemical determinism and user helplessness.
We would never have even heard of Freud except for cocaine. How many geniuses is America stifling even as we speak thanks to the war on mind improving medicines?
How else will they scare us enough to convince us to give up all our freedoms for the purpose of fighting horrible awful evil DRUGS? DRUGS is the sledgehammer with which they are destroying American democracy.
There are plenty of "prima facie" reasons for believing that we could eliminate most problems with drug and alcohol withdrawal by chemically aided sleep cures combined with using "drugs" to fight "drugs." But drug warriors don't want a fix, they WANT drug use to be a problem.
Using the billions now spent on caging users, we could end the whole phenomena of both physical and psychological addiction by using "drugs to fight drugs." But drug warriors do not want to end addiction, they want to keep using it as an excuse to ban drugs.
It's really an insurance concern, however, disguised as a concern for public health. Because of America's distrust of "drugs," a company will be put out of business if someone happens to die while using "drugs," even if the drug was not really responsible for the death.
What I want to know is, who sold Christopher Reeves that horse that he fell off of? Who was peddling that junk?!
Every time I see a psychiatrist, I feel like I'm playing a game of make-believe. We're both pretending that hundreds of demonized medicines do not exist and could be of no use whatsoever.
Drugs like opium and cocaine should come with the following warning: "Outlawing of this product may result in inner-city gunfire, civil wars overseas, and rigged elections in which drug warriors win office by throwing minorities in jail."
The Hindu religion was inspired by drug use.
Assisted suicide cannot be discussed meaningfully without discussing the drug prohibition that renders it necessary in the first place.
(up)