The disturbing connection between drug prohibition and the new phenomenon of 'sensitivity reading' in the publishing industry
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
June 2, 2026
There is a new book on the market that tells us everything that is wrong about drug prohibition. I am referring to the book by PhD Adam Szetela of Cornell University entitled "That Book is Dangerous!: How Moral Panic, Social Media, and the Culture Wars Are Remaking Publishing."1 Adam's book is all about the new use of human "sensitivity readers" on the part of major American publishers. 2 These readers vet the works of authors to make sure that they contain nothing that could offend the minority group to which any particular "sensitivity reader" happens to belong. And so a Black reader will flag potential Black stereotypes in the submitted text of an author, an Italian-American will flag what he or she sees as a stereotypical depiction of Italians, and so forth. The book will then be edited based on these cultural-specific suggestions in order to avoid giving offense to those demographics that the publisher has chosen to protect from the potentially unwelcome insights of an author.
Of course, the average American will see no connection between that subject and drug prohibition, but guess what? That is the very problem of which I speak. For both censorship and drug prohibition exist because we do not hold these truths to be self-evident, that freedom of speech is a basic "given" of a free society, as is the right to take care of one's own health and to access and profit from the bounty of Mother Nature.3 When we start limiting these rights on grounds of expediency, we are, by definition, no longer living in a free country, since a free country is, according to our own American tradition, one with freedom of speech and the right to take care of our own health -- with any exceptions being limited to what everybody would agree to be unusual and egregious circumstances, whereas these two new dispensations normalize censorship as the very status quo of American publishing, while outlawing Mother Nature's medicines for literally everybody, making that freedom-scorning law a rule rather than an exception of any kind.
The whole idea of the Bill of Rights was to remind legislators that some freedoms are too basic to be outlawed based on fearmongering, and yet both the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are now considered to be too dangerous for Americans to take seriously anymore. There seems to be a growing consensus that we can no longer handle them. Okay, fine. But let's at least be honest with ourselves and the world: if we really want to go down this road of giving up basic rights, we should be honest and discard the adjective "free" for our country -- our actions clearly demonstrate that we feel that freedom is too dangerous for the American people. So let's recognize this uber-sensitive and prohibitive status quo for what it is. I am ready to denominate it with the terms of your choice, but let's not offend human reason by referring to this new worrywart status quo as "freedom." On the other hand, if I can convince you to be repelled at this indifference to the importance of the freedoms that have always been thought to constitute a democracy as conceived of by Thomas Jefferson, let us just say no to the trashing of the Bill of Rights inherent in both "sensitivity reading" and drug prohibition.
Speaking specifically of the former for a moment, this sensitivity censorship simply does not pass either a laugh test or a philosophical test. The best book ever written about Americans was written by a Frenchman.4 The most effective book ever written against slavery was by a white American woman.5 The fact is that there are both pluses and minuses to being a member of the group about which one is writing. The sensitivity censors are ostensibly fighting prejudice and stereotyping, yet what could be more prejudicial and stereotyping than censoring an author based on their own cultural identity? Besides, this censorship is clearly not politically neutral.
As a white American male, I personally am bothered by non-fiction authors who use the pronoun "she" -- and only the pronoun "she" -- to mean "any given person."6 Such usage implies a certain political (and biological) point of view about the meaning and importance of gender and sex in modern life and how perceived historical and literary wrongs should be remedied. And that's a problem, because when I read a book about horses, or cooking, or building rockets, I want to learn about horses, or cooking, or building rockets: I do not want to be distracted from the subject at hand by a question-begging choice of pronouns, as if I'm being tacitly lectured on a philosophical question about which I do not even have the ability to reply. Surely my sensitivities have not been consulted by the publishers of such books. And yet I cannot see a modern publisher hiring me to find out if the pronouns being used in a non-fiction book are going to piss off a white American male. I guess they feel that my demographic is adult enough to "take it," but in that case, they are surely being condescending toward other demographics, assuming that they aren't smart enough to simply put down a book whose text simply does not "ring true" for them, whether on the subject of their own particular identity or on any other topic whatsoever.
There is another connection between "sensitivity reading" and drug prohibition, by the way. In "sensitivity reading," we judge a person based on something other than what they actually write or mean; in drug prohibition, we judge a person based on something other than how they actually behave in life. In both cases, we set up a litmus test as a kind of newfangled shortcut for determining whether a person is worth our time or not. In one case, we prejudge a person based on their identity; in the other, we prejudge them based on the contents of their digestive system.
Finally, a word about Dr. Szetela's book in particular (which I'm assuming was not vetted for sensitivity concerns by its publisher, MIT Press). Although I have yet to even read the work, I would already like to suggest a revised title for what I hope will be the second edition of this all-too-timely tome:
"That Book is Dangerous!: How Moral Panic, Social Media, and the Culture Wars are destroying American Freedom -- with the help of drug prohibition, that is."
Addiction thrives BECAUSE of prohibition, which limits drug choice and discourages education about psychoactive substances and how to use them wisely.
"I can take this drug that inspires me and makes me compassionate and teaches me to love nature in its byzantine complexity, or I can take Prozac which makes me unable to cry at my parents' funeral. Hmm. Which shall it be?" Only a mad person in a mad world would choose SSRIs.
All uplifting drugs are potential antidepressants. Science denies that fact by claiming that drug efficacy must be proven quantitatively. And so they ignore anecdote, history and psychological common sense.
In America, they save the depressed from cocaine and opium by turning them into patients for life with dependence-causing "meds." Now 30-year-old doctors get to treat 67-year-olds like children, with new visits every damn three months.
The FDA will be accepting comments through September 20th on the subject of ways to fight PTSD.
PTSD@reaganudall.org
Ask them why they support brain-damaging shock therapy but won't approve drugs like MDMA that could make ECT unnecessary.
Freud thought cocaine was a great antidepressant. His contemporaries demonized the drug by focusing only on the rare misusers. That's like judging alcohol by focusing on alcoholics.
Typical materialist protocol. Take all the "wonder" out of the drug and sell it as a one-size-fits all "reductionist" cure for anxiety. Notice that they refer to hallucinations and euphoria as "adverse effects." What next? Communion wine with the religion taken out of it?
Drug prohibition is a crime against humanity. It is the outlawing of our right to take care of our own health.
Alexander Shulgin is a typical westerner when he speaks about cocaine. He moralizes about the drug, telling us that it does not give him "real" power. But so what? Does coffee give him "real" power? Coke helps some, others not. Stop holding it to this weird metaphysical standard.
Drug prohibition is the biggest tyranny imaginable. It is the government control of pain relief. It is government telling us how and how much we are allowed to think and feel in this life.
(up)