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"
To say that taking SSRIs daily is better than using opium daily is a value judgement, not a scientific one.
The outlawing of coca and opium is a crime against humanity.
Rick Strassman reportedly stopped his DMT trials because some folks had bad experiences at high doses. That is like giving up on aspirin because high doses of NSAIDs can kill.
It's a category error to say that scientists can tell us if psychoactive drugs "really work." It's like asking Dr. Spock of Star Trek if hugging "really works." ("Hugging is highly illogical, Captain.")
Prohibition never ended. Busybody Americans just gave alcohol a big Mulligan for killing 178,000 a year in America alone and then began fighting to outlaw everything else.
We've all been taught since grade school that human beings cannot use psychoactive medicines wisely. That is a defeatest lie. It's criminal to keep substances illegal that can awaken the mind and remind us of our full potential in life.
The FDA should have no role in approving psychoactive medicine. They evaluate them based on materialist standards rather than holistic ones. In practice, this means the FDA ignores all glaringly obvious benefits.
What is the end game of the drug warrior? A world in which no one wants drugs? That's not science. It's the drug-hating religion of Christian Science. You know, the American religion that outsources its Inquisition to drug-testing labs.
I passed a sign that says "Trust Trump." What does that mean? Trust him to crack down on his opposition using the U.S. Army? Or trust him not to do all the anti-American things that he's saying he's going to do.
It is far better to "treat the symptoms" than to irreversibly modify brain chemistry in one particular way based on the theories of a financially-motivated biochemical determinist working for a pharmaceutical company.
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.
(up)