Two things that Aldous Huxley got wrong about drugs

Homepage of the Drug War Philosopher, Brian Quass

Two things that Aldous Huxley got wrong about drugs

comments inspired by the 1959 lecture series entitled The Human Situation

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

June 30, 2025

In almost all writing about drugs and enlightenment, it is taken for granted that there is a clear distinction between drug-aided mystical states and those that come from a presumably "sober" mind. Most drug pundits forget that human beings, organically speaking, are biochemical creatures and so their acts are ALWAYS catalyzed by, caused by and/or correlated with chemical reactions: that is to say, their acts are always drug-inspired in the most literal sense of that term. Strictly speaking then, there is no such thing as a drug-free mystical experience. Even Aldous Huxley ¹ himself failed to appreciate this fact, one which has profound implications when it comes to the philosophy of drug use. Huxley's oversight is odd, for he himself comments on the extraordinary variability of the human species compared to other species, particularly when it comes to morphology, a difference which he credits for producing (or at least explaining) the wide differences in personality between person and person. But Huxley fails to acknowledge the vast differences between persons when it comes to biochemistry, a fact which follows almost apodictically from the morphological difference. Only in acknowledging these internal biochemical differences can we understand the differences between William Blake and Joe Public, between Meister Eckhart and Babbitt.

Blake and Eckhart possessed biochemistry that readily facilitated mystical visions. They were not drug-free visionaries - it is simply that their drugs were apparently built-in, built in to their own digestive system. I say "apparently built-in" because there is always the chance that they may have ingested substances that we would demonize today as "drugs" but which they considered no more causatively defining than we would consider caffeine or tobacco. We assume thanks to our prohibitionist mindset that Blake and Eckhart would have seen their ingestion of psychoactive substances as being somehow foreign to some imagined drug-free quest for enlightenment and so would have informed us of any such use on their part, but this is to assume that these mystics shared our drug-war biases in the first place, that drugs/chemicals are a separate thing distinct from life and not rather an integral part of daily experience, an experience which is ultimately shaped, not by any one drug or chemical, but by a vast system of inputs of widely disparate natures in an inherently holistic world.

As mentioned, this long overlooked fact - that Homo sapiens are ALWAYS "on drugs" - has profound implications. First and foremost, it reminds us of the folly of drug pundits trying to tell us what we need in life in order to gain enlightenment and other benefits. It is enormously presumptuous of them. Alan Watts demonstrates this presumption when he opines that we "should" not need to use psychedelic drugs more than once, ideally, because one merely needs to be shown the way, after which the "sober" body can always follow successfully. But what does Watts know about my personal biochemistry (my so-called "sober" body) and how far it falls short of the default vision-friendly biochemistry that he seems to possess? He may as well tell headache sufferers that they should only use one aspirin because he, Alan, has never required two. Human beings, as Huxley reminds us, are the most variegated species on earth, and yet somehow our moralizing "experts on mystical states" believe that we all have the self-same biochemistry and biochemical potential. This is ultimately the idea behind drug prohibition, that because our sober upstanding citizens, given their personal biochemistry, do not feel the need for a certain substance (or even for enlightenment itself), then nobody can or should need such things. In short, the Drug War is all about ignoring the differences between persons --- a blindness that Huxley shares in part thanks to his implicit assumption that default body chemistry is the same, person to person.

Much of the positive poetic sensibilities of Whitman could be explained with reference to an occasional use of opium on his part - but even if we assume that Whitman foreswore the drug entirely, he still wrote while he was on "drugs," insofar as we all do EVERYTHING while on drugs. We are, in a sense, all biochemical systems. Seen in this light, the use of drugs by the hoi polloi can be viewed as a highly understandable attempt to become Walt Whitman or Meister Eckhart for a day: it is an attempt to adjust one's own body chemistry such that we too can see beyond the veil with the great mystics of yore.

Speaking of presumption, Huxley shared (and even epitomized) the jaundiced view of the west when it comes to drugs. Consider the following citation from his 1959 lecture series entitled "The Human Situation."

"A great many other drugs have been used [to gain enlightenment] — hashish, opium , and what not — most of them extremely harmful but some of them naturally occurring drugs which open up the consciousness to the visionary experience and which appear to be relatively harmless to the physiology and not to be addictive in any way."

"Most of them extremely harmful"?

Why is it that the westerner's first reaction when faced with drugs like opium is to completely ignore all their ENORMOUS psychological, physical and spiritual benefits and to judge them instead based on their worst possible misuse by uneducated young people - young people whom we refuse to educate about safe use? If westerners cannot see a way to use these drugs safely in their western world, then there is something wrong with their western world, not with drugs. Drugs are not extremely harmful in and of themselves, our policies toward drugs make them so. Young people were not dying on the streets from the use of opiates when opiates were legal in America, it took drug prohibition to bring about that dystopia, by refusing to teach safe use, refusing to regulate product and refusing to allow for true drug choice.

Harmful? How harmful? When used at what dose for what reason in what circumstances? I may as well say that cars are harmful. It is a meaningless observation in the absence of specifics, especially in a world in which the media ruthlessly censors all positive stories about car driving, leaving viewers to conclude that such positive uses do not exist, even though anecdote, history and common sense all say otherwise.

But then Huxley is an elitist when it comes to drug use. Psychedelics for him are good drugs - and yet opium ² and hashish are evil and should be judged only with regard to their dangers. This is a childish, and an anti-indigenous viewpoint as well: for the moment that we accept that drugs may be pilloried outside of context for downsides, then the western world will be able to veto the use of every single drug in the rainforest on so-called "scientific" grounds. This is how pharmacological colonialism works. The question, therefore, should never be: "Can this drug be misused?" but rather: "How can we use this drug as wisely and safely as possible for the benefit of humanity?"

Yet the westerner is completely oblivious to all obvious drug benefits. Consider these effects of drug use as recounted by Edgar Allan Poe in "A Tale of the Ragged Mountains":

"In the meantime the morphine ³ had its customary effect- that of enduing all the external world with an intensity of interest. In the quivering of a leaf- in the hue of a blade of grass- in the shape of a trefoil- in the humming of a bee- in the gleaming of a dew-drop- in the breathing of the wind- in the faint odors that came from the forest- there came a whole universe of suggestion- a gay and motley train of rhapsodical and immethodical thought."

In a sane world, we would read such drug-use outcomes and respond as follows:

"Wow! This surreal appreciation of the world around us has obvious godsend benefits, in philosophy, in religion, in psychology! We should use this drug wisely, in a non-addictive manner, to help people appreciate the world around them and give them a healthy break from an insular and uninspired life! The strategic use of such drugs could all but end suicide! Wow, wow, wow!!!"

In the age of the drug-war, we have a very different reaction indeed.

We simply mutter that the drug is "extremely harmful" and leave it at that.

What?!

And so we dogmatically frighten ourselves with our Drug War hysteria into doing without all manner of godsend medicines - and then we have the audacity to wring our hands over suicide and shock therapy and school shootings - failing to realize that we have outlawed all substances that could help prevent such things on the grounds that such substances are "extremely dangerous."

Oh, really? Isn't suicide ⁴ dangerous? Isn't shock therapy dangerous? Aren't school shootings dangerous? Isn't life itself dangerous?

What I am saying here is that we westerners never do a true cost-benefit analysis of drug use; we instead look to pillory drugs by judging them outside of all context as good or bad. The fact that Huxley himself is a cheerleader for this vice demonstrates how completely the drug-war ideology of substance demonization has bamboozled otherwise clear thinkers into reasoning like children.

SUMMARY

The two things that Huxley did not understand are:

1) that ALL mystical experiences are facilitated by drugs (there are no drug-free mystical visions)

and...

2) that no drugs are "extremely harmful" in and of themselves -- they are only made so by bad social policies (chief of which is the counterproductive and inhumane policy of drug prohibition itself)

AFTERWORD

Of course, it is easy to see why America would want to blame drugs rather than social policies. If we turn substances like the coca plant and poppies into bad guys, then we can claim the right to invade other countries in order to fight a "scourge." This is, of course, the ultimate case of self-interested mass denial. We blame inanimate objects for the deadly outcome of our own racist social policies. It is just as if we had found that Americans could not use knives wisely, and so rather than teaching our population how to use cutlery safely, we went around the globe confiscating knives from everybody in the name of eliminating a great "scourge." Knives are "extremely harmful," after all. And if anyone objects, the prohibitionist just steals the moral high ground with the de rigueur comeback: "You would be in favor of outlawing knives too if YOUR loved one had been killed by a knife!"

Notes for essay entitled Two things that Aldous Huxley got wrong about drugs: comments inspired by the 1959 lecture series entitled The Human Situation:

1: “The Human Situation : Lectures at Santa Barbara, 1959 : Huxley, Aldous, 1894-1963 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.” 2026. Internet Archive. 2026. https://archive.org/details/humansituationle00huxl/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater. (up)
2: The Truth About Opium by William H. Brereton DWP (up)
3: Three takeaway lessons from the use of morphine by William Halsted, co-founder of Johns Hopkins Medical School DWP (up)
4: Why Americans Prefer Suicide to Drug Use DWP (up)

read more essays here

Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US

What prohibitionists forget is that every popular but dangerous activity, from horseback riding to drug use, will have its victims. You cannot save everybody, and when you try to do so by law, you kill far more than you save, meanwhile destroying democracy in the process.

The press is having a field day with the Matthew Perry story. They love to have a nice occasion to demonize drugs. I wonder how many decades must pass before they realize that people are killed by ignorance and a corrupted drug supply, not by the drugs themselves.

After watching my mother suffer because of the drug war, I hate to hear people tell me that the problem is drugs. WRONG! That's a western colonialist viewpoint. God loved his creation (see Genesis). He did not make trash. We need to use entheogenic medicines wisely.

Here's one problem that supporters of the psychiatric pill mill never address: the fact that Big Pharma antidepressants demoralize users by turning them into patients for life.

Rather than protesting prohibition as a crackdown on academic freedom, today's scientists are collaborating with the drug war by promoting shock therapy and SSRIs, thereby profiting from the monopoly that the drug war gives them in selling mind and mood medicine.

I'm told antidepressant withdrawal is fine because it doesn't cause cravings. Why is it better to feel like hell than to have a craving? In any case, cravings are caused by prohibition. A sane world could also end cravings with the help of other drugs.

Antidepressants might be fine in a world where drugs were legal. Then it would actually be possible to get off them by using drugs that have inspired entire religions. In the age of prohibition, however, an antidepressant prescription is usually a life sentence.

The Petpedia website says that "German Shepherds need to have challenging jobs such as searching for drugs." How about searching for prohibitionists instead?

One merely has to look at any issue of Psychology Today to see articles in which the author reckons without the Drug War, in which they pretend that banned substances do not exist and so fail to incorporate any topic-related insights that might otherwise come from user reports.

Psychedelics and entheogens should be freely available to all dementia patients. These medicines can increase neuronal plasticity and even grow new neurons. Besides, they can inspire and elate -- or do we puritans feel that our loved ones have no right to peace of mind?

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)

Two things that Aldous Huxley got wrong about drugs

comments inspired by the 1959 lecture series entitled The Human Situation

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