There is no such thing as free speech in Drug War America

Homepage of the Drug War Philosopher, Brian Quass

There is no such thing as free speech in Drug War America

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

May 26, 2026

There is no such thing as free speech in Drug War America. If there was free speech, we would see billboards calling for the end of drug prohibition, we would see billboards touting the benefits of outlawed drugs, we would see billboards demanding an end to the psychiatric pill mill, we would see billboards demanding the end to the government censorship of science, we would see billboards demanding the right to use psychoactive substances for religious purposes, and so forth. To the extent that such billboards exist in America today, they exist only as exceptions that prove the rule: to wit, that our conglomerate media simply will not allow such viewpoints the light of day. Media companies will claim that such ads encourage "drug use," a totally circular argument that assumes the correctness of the drug-related attitudes that the would-be advertiser is denouncing in the first place. This is the sad truth that I am coming to after having studied drug attitudes from a philosophical perspective for the last seven years.

Google would not even index my site about drugs.

When I started this journey, I was very naive about America. I assumed that free speech was free speech. To be specific, I thought that my site about drug attitudes would be listed and promulgated on Google Search the same way that my former site about owls had been promulgated, so that I could see which pages attracted whom and why and so improve my site step by step. Instead, I found that Google would not even index my site about drugs. It turns out they prefer "consensus" web pages that will be of use to web surfers and that they are in charge of deciding whether a page is of use -- and what's more, one has no right to appeal their decisions on that topic. When I asked AI about this disturbing status quo, it lectured me about the nature of the capitalist system, reminding me that Google was a private company and could do as it pleased. So there! And yet Google is not just some private company: they are a monopoly that controls online visibility and thus when they ignore content, they are effectively censoring that content and so outlawing free speech in America. Or rather we still have the right to free speech, provided that Google techies (and the algorithms for which they stand) decide that what we're saying is worthwhile and actually needs to be seen by anybody.

And so what started out as my simple exploration of American drug attitudes has taught me an unexpected lesson: that free speech is a thing of the past. It will be argued that such freedom never existed in the first place, but that's a story for another essay. The point here is that today's censorship is unique, whatever we may have seen in the past: for we now have one single company that gets to decide whether what you and I have to say is worth hearing. So much for the idea that the Internet was going to bring about the democratization of information and the free spread of ideas. Ideas will only spread if Google decides that they deserve to spread, though we can always hope for our content to go viral online, just as we already hope to win the lottery someday in our offline lives.

 So much for the idea that the Internet was going to bring about the democratization of information and the free spread of ideas.

Of course, you're not likely to hear much about such censorship for obvious reasons. All the traditional societal powerhouses are exempt from such censorship, and that includes the mental health professionals who have turned me into a ward of the healthcare state thanks to their monopoly on prescribing mind and mood medicine. They can tell me to "take my meds" in a variety of heavily annotated papers with impressive-sounding titles, but I cannot tell them why I should not have to take those meds, why I should have access to the vast pharmacopoeia of Mother Nature instead, and why they, if they were truly interested in my psychological health, would stand up for my rights to use the same, rather than sitting back in well-paid silence and thereby helping to normalize the hateful policy of drug prohibition. I can always contact such researchers one by one, as indeed I do (only to be ignored, as it were, one by one), but when a no-named researcher Ph.D. from Georgia trashes nitrous oxide on The Conversation website, I cannot respond in kind because I am not a board-certified academic, and we all know that drug benefits have to be established by reductionist scientists who are blind to all glaringly obvious benefits of drug use.

I am still coming to terms with the fact that Google will not even deign to index my drug-related site. Speaking of which, if you're one of my rare readers, I apologize in advance for any shortcomings in said site. My plan was always to adjust my style -- at least to the extent that I could do so with a clear conscience -- by viewing which essays are popular and which not. But since Google indexes absolutely none of my web pages, I am given no way to separate my wheat from my chaff. I am therefore flying blind, except for the excruciatingly rare advice that I receive via my contact form from one of my handful of followers. I was recently informed, for instance, that I had "overdone it" with the AI imagery, after which I promptly corrected that perceived flaw -- which, by the way, reminds us of the disproportionate power possessed by the first few critics of a well-hidden website like mine. They are like the first person to review a site on Trip Advisor or Yelp!: their wish is the criticized person's command, at least in the absence of any obvious malice on the critic's part.

This is why we need organized pushback against drug prohibition from the med-dependent depressed.

I used to blame psychiatrists for telling me to "shut up and take my meds" whenever I tried to complain online about the psychiatric pill mill, and yet Google is telling me the exact same thing in their own way. And when I complain to the sites that are supposedly set up to "help" the med-dependent, I am told that I have no standing in the debate: that academics in the medical field are the experts on what I should take, and when, for my depression. Indeed, I have discovered many sites that want to "help" the med-dependent, but none that really want to learn from them. We are giving sandboxes in which we can mouth off, but the substacks full of "real" opinions are populated by board-certified medical personnel and board-certified ethicists, etc. We patients can read such things for our benefit, of course, but we can never hold forth in such a venue: we are the patients, after all, who have to be taught the ropes by experts: if not our doctors then their replacements from the self-help field, as they flog vitamins, meditation routines, and otherwise proselytize on behalf of the joys of the Christian Science lifestyle, free of all drugs whatsoever.

This is why we need organized pushback against drug prohibition from the med-dependent depressed. These people need to come together as a group and demand an end to the drug prohibition that outlaws their right to heal. The very existence of such a group would remind the Drug Warriors that there are more stakeholders in American drug policy than the white suburban young people whom they refuse to educate about safe use. Google may not allow an algorithmically perceived nobody like myself to make these points online, but they may yet allow thousands of people to do so as a group. But for that to happen, I first have to persuade the depressed to see the disempowering forest for the trees. Unfortunately, that will involve the mother of all David and Goliath battles, as I go up against a mindset that is being preached with the help of billions of dollars' worth of anti-drug campaigns from government, Big Pharma, and psychiatric front organizations selling Americans on the idea that depression can only be beaten with the help of a lifelong commitment to taking pharmaceuticals on a daily basis under the watchful (and expensive) eye of a board-certified doctor.

Key Takeaways:

If there was free speech, we would see billboards demanding the freedom of academia.
If there was free speech, we would see billboards demanding the right to take care of our own health as we see fit.
Google controls online visibility and their decisions cannot be appealed.
One company decides whether what we have to say is worth hearing in the online world.
Social mainstay organizations are exempt from Google censorship.
Google tells the depressed to 'shut up and take their meds' by censoring the voices of the victims of drug prohibition and the psychiatric pill mill.
Effective pushback against drug prohibition will require the organizing of med-dependent depressives as a group to demand the right to take care of their own health.

Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US

Drug prohibition is superstitious idiocy. It is based on the following crazy idea: that a substance that can be misused by a white young person at one dose for one reason must not be used by anybody at any dose for any reason.

We drastically limit drug choices, we refuse to teach safe use, and then we discover there's a gene to explain why some people have trouble with drugs. Science loves to find simple solutions to complex problems.

People magazine should be fighting for justice on behalf of the thousands of American young people who are dying on the streets because of the drug war.

Prohibitionists will me that we're all children when it comes to drugs, and can never -- but never -- use them wisely. That's like saying that we could never ride horses wisely. Or mountain climb. Or skateboard.

NOW is the time for entheogens -- not (as Strassman and Pollan seem to think) at some future date when materialists have finally wrapped their minds around the potential usefulness of drugs that experientially teach compassion.

The healthcare industry turns all the emotional downsides of drug prohibition into "illnesses."

"Like Christians burning mosques and temples to spread the word of Jesus, modem drugabuseologists burn crops to spread the use of alcohol." -- Ceremonial Chemistry, p. 48

Irony of ironies, that the indignant 19th-century hatred of liquor should ultimately result in the outlawing of virtually every mind-affecting substance on the planet EXCEPT for liquor.

Magazines like Psychology Today continue to publish feel-good articles about depression which completely ignore the fact that we have outlawed all drugs that could end depression in a heartbeat.

I will gladly respect the police once we remove them from Gestapo duty by ending the war on drugs. Police should also learn to live on a budget, without deriving income from confiscating houses and dormitories, etc.

Click here to see All Tweets against the hateful War on Us

No cookies, no ads paid for by amoral and immoral billionaires (or trillionaires).

Unless otherwise indicated, no AI is used in the creation of site content. These essays represent the original ideas of their author and not the ideas that the author SHOULD have based on an algorithmic parsing of existing data. For more on this subject, consider the AI-related viewpoints to which the author subscribes as delineated in the New York Times opinion piece entitled "What 370,000 College Essays Tell Us About A.I.’s Effects on Creativity" by Rebecca Winthrop of the Brookings Institution.

The Partnership for a Death Free America is a proud sponsor of The Drug War Philosopher website @ abolishthedea.com.

tombstone for American Democracy, 1776-2024, RIP

(up)

There is no such thing as free speech in Drug War America

Key Takeaways:

Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US

Break the ice with a sledgehammer: place this book on your coffee table.

Diary of a Drug Fiend