Why the Drug War is the Great Philosophical Problem of Our Time
my application for joining the Philosophy Forum
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
March 25, 2025
Membership in the Philosophy Forum1 is by invitation only and the moderator requests a letter of introduction from potential members. I will be very interested to see if I am "allowed in." I know nothing about the site moderator, but I do know that philosophers in general ignore the Drug War completely and seem to think that it is bad manners even to mention the topic. But fingers crossed. Check back to this page from time to time to see whether the Philosophy Forum will let your old pal Rudolph join in any reindeer games!
Hello, Jamal.
I was wondering if I might join your Philosophy Forum.
I am a 66-year-old philosopher in spirit if not in title. I have written hundreds of philosophically oriented essays against the War on Drugs and drug prohibition as The Drug War Philosopher at abolishthedea.com. I have also written essays for Sociedelic magazine. I received a BA in Philosophy from Virginia Commonwealth University in 1989. I was offered a job as a TA at the time, but unfortunately, I turned it down. I have come to regret that decision since I now see that my lack of credentials has rendered me more or less invisible online in the world of philosophical discussions.
I am, however, the only professed philosopher who protested on behalf of William James against the FDA's recently announced plan to regulate laughing gas as a "drug.2" As I am sure you know, it was the use of such anesthetics that gave James his view of reality and that he urged philosophers to study the effects of such substances as well.
'No account of the universe in its totality,' wrote James, 'can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded.3'
But many (most?) philosophers are afraid to challenge the drug-war ideology of substance demonization. William James founded the psychology department at Harvard University, and yet Harvard's online bio of James does not even mention his use of such substances or how they shaped his views of reality4.
Don't worry: whenever I post on such subjects in forums, I always make supported inductive or deductive arguments and/or quote identifiable sources: I do not simply rant against the status quo, even though I am depressed that so few philosophers push back against the Drug War, given the fact that it is, in my view, the great philosophical problem of our time. I believe that it represents the triumph of illogical argumentation over common sense, arguments based on unfounded yet unspoken premises -- in other words, it represents a world view which philosophers as such might be thought to be uniquely qualified to anatomize and rebuke, were they not afraid to do so. This is one of the benefits of working outside academia: I can afford to be braver than tenured professors.
I have, in fact, written hundreds of letters to philosophers on this subject, almost all of which have been ignored, however5. The Drug War has frightened academics into silence, which alone is a good enough reason to end it, were there not many other reasons to do so as well, such as the fact that it has brought about the end of the rule of law in Latin America, while turning America's inner-cities into no-go zones and causing unnecessary drug overdoses by refusing to teach safe use and to regulate product. We are also under a sort of intense form of propaganda as westerners, thanks to which almost no reports of positive drug use can be published or depicted in movies or other media - this despite the fact that user reports in books by researchers such as Alexander Shulgin6 (and James Fadiman7, William Richards8, Stanislav Grof9, etc.) imply endless potential for common-sense therapeutic drug use. Consider the following user reports in Shulgin's book "Pihkal: A Chemical Love Story10":
"The breakthrough I had... the following day... was of the highest value and importance for me.11"
"The feeling was one of great camaraderie, and it was very easy to talk to people.12"
"I am experiencing more deeply than ever before the importance of acknowledging and deeply honoring each human being. And I was able to go through and resolve some judgments with particular persons.13"
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?
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.
Properly speaking, MDMA has killed no one at all. Prohibitionists were delighted when Leah Betts died because they were sure it was BECAUSE of MDMA/Ecstasy. Whereas it was because of the fact that prohibitionists refuse to teach safe use.
There would be almost no recidivism for those trying to get off drugs if all drugs were legal. Then we could use a vast variety of drugs to get us through those few hours of late-night angst that are the bane of the recidivist.
If daily drug use and dependency are okay, then there's no logical or scientific reason why I can't smoke a nightly opium pipe.
The Hindu religion was inspired by drug use.
The DEA is a Schedule I agency. It has no known positive uses and is known to cause death and destruction.
We throw people out of jobs for using "drugs," we praise them for using "meds." The categories are imaginary, made up by politicians who want to demonize certain substances, but not cigs or beer.
Problem 2,643 of the war on drugs:
It puts the government in charge of deciding what counts as a true religion.
"The Harrison [Narcotics] Act made the drug peddler, and the drug peddler makes drug addicts.” --Robert A. Schless, 1925.
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?