Rescuing Americans from the Great Cult of Substance Demonization
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
July 23, 2026
[curtain rises as overture fades]
COUNSELOR: He's in there, Brian. I hope you can talk some sense into him. I can't seem to make him understand that the outlawing of Mother Nature is crazy on the face of it, to say nothing of the fact that drug prohibition has overloaded our so-called "justice" system to the point that trials are now a thing of the past, with 97% of cases being "resolved" by plea deals.1
BRIAN: Ah, yes, the good old plea deal: where the DA threatens the suspect with lengthy jail sentences unless they give up their right to a fair trial by a jury of their peers.
COUNSELOR: He's all yours, mate.
BRIAN: What's the name of this joker, anyway?
COUNSELOR: One John Q. Public, Brian.
BRIAN (writing): John... Q... Public. Gotcha.
COUNSELOR: Good luck. You're gonna need it.
BRIAN: Hey, where do you think you're off to?
COUNSELOR: I'm going over next-door to try to talk some sense into this guy's wife. Believe it or not, she's been brought in on the self-same charges: which is to say, complete irrationality when it comes to the subject of drugs.
BRIAN: His wife, huh? Let me guess: her name is Jane Q. Public, right?
COUNSELOR: How did you guess?
BRIAN: I've had this pair in before on charges of tacitly supporting racist and anti-democratic drug laws.
COUNSELOR: When will they ever learn, Brian?
BRIAN (walking into interview room): Hopefully, right about... now!
INTERVIEW
BRIAN: John, John, John...
JOHN: Brian, Brian, Brian.
BRIAN: So, you're still supporting the braindead idea that we should outlaw substances rather than regulate them and learn to use them as wisely as possible for the benefit of humanity.
JOHN: Don't get me wrong, Brian. I see wonderful possibilities for psilocybin mushrooms... and I am still willing to be convinced when it comes to using MDMA for the benefit of soldiers with PTSD.
BRIAN: But...?
JOHN: But you've got to admit, there are some substances that are just beyond the pale and should be outlawed for the benefit of our poor defenseless white young people.
BRIAN: WHITE young people?
JOHN: Did I say "white"? Oh, you know what I mean.
BRIAN: Yes, I'm afraid I do.
JOHN: If you legalize say, cocaine, you will be responsible for all the people who develop terrible habits.
BRIAN: Well, in that case, I am sure that you yourself will be glad to take responsibility for the ongoing results of drug prohibition, thanks to which 80,000 young people died in 2024 of totally unnecessary overdoses! 2
JOHN: And that's prohibition's fault?
BRIAN: (sarcastically) Um... yes! These young people overdosed because they were using unregulated product. They did not know what doses they were using -- indeed, they did not even know for sure what DRUGS they were using. And I need hardly add that the drug prohibitionists are actually opposed to teaching safe drug use.
JOHN: Well, I--
BRIAN: 80,000 unnecessary deaths, John. Read it and weep -- or hear it and weep or whatever.
JOHN: And yet drug dependency is a terrible thing, Brian.
BRIAN: Says the guy who takes a dependence-causing "med" every day of his life -- just like 1 in 4 American women, I might add. Your wife, too, perhaps?
JOHN: You leave my wife out of this. She's a conscientious woman who is taking care of her depression on a scientific basis, just like yours truly.
BRIAN: Saints preserve us. This guy still believes in the chemical imbalance myth that was promulgated by the pharmaceutical company ad departments, a viewpoint that has long since been discredited by scientists themselves.3 Earth to John: Antidepressants do NOT fix a chemical imbalance; indeed, there is evidence to suggest that they cause chemical imbalances in the brain.4 That could go a long way toward explaining the extraordinary difficulty that long-term users like myself encounter in trying to kick these "meds" of yours.
JOHN: But--
BRIAN: Meanwhile, do you know WHAT?
JOHN: Surprise me.
BRIAN: 34% of American soldiers used heroin overseas during the Vietnam War, and 20% showed signs of dependency, and yet only 1% of our American soldiers became "re-addicted" to heroin upon returning to the States. 1%. 5
JOHN: Well--
BRIAN: Imagine if they had used Effexor overseas. Those 20% would be still using today, should they have lived so long, and probably that 34% as well!
JOHN: Well--
BRIAN: And do you know what the craziest thing of all is?
JOHN: You're gonna tell me, anyway.
BRIAN: Our medical establishment would be praising them for doing so!
JOHN: Well--
BRIAN: And while asking God for forgiveness for your complicity in those 80,000 deaths, you may as well tell him how the policies you support have forced millions of depressed people around the world to live lives of quiet despair, totally unnecessarily, I might add: not just because of the outlawing of cocaine, but because of the outlawing of a vast variety of drugs, both extant and potential, that could be used on a symptomatic basis to make life bearable for them -- nay, even enjoyable -- just as most modern prohibitionists like yourself now use alcohol (ironically enough) to treat your weariness and anxiety on a real-time basis.
JOHN: I want to see my--
BRIAN: I know, I know, you want to see your lawyer.
JOHN: No. I want to see my friend who's a founding member of the Partnership for a Drug Free America. I need someone to remind me why I should remain obstinate in the face of this otherwise withering critique. I know that there are good reasons to demur, but I'll be blessed if I can think of any. You're obviously trying to confuse me...
BRIAN: John, John, John...
JOHN: Brian, Brian, Brian!
BRIAN: Don't you see, John? You say that certain drugs should be outlawed. But you fail to see the downsides of doing that. I am not simply referring to the unnecessary deaths and suffering caused by drug prohibition that I have already tasked you with above...
JOHN: "Tasked me with above"?
BRIAN: ...I am referring to the additional fact that drug prohibition has turned America into a penal colony, with 1.4 million Americans being arrested every year for mere drug possession, often for tiny amounts -- and that's 1.4 million drug arrests out of a total of roughly 1.6 million yearly arrests. Imagine that, John: 1.4 million people in jail for crimes that never existed in the world until Americans decided to start outlawing the medicines that grow at our very feet. This is why I say that drug prohibition is a make-work program for law enforcement and the corrections industry. Speaking of which, did you know that "the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association campaigned against parole reform," and that "The California Correctional Peace Officers Association spends approximately $8 million annually on lobbying to defeat criminal justice reform, ranging from opposition to reform of three strikes laws to prison expansion"? I kid you not -- or rather author Colleen Cowles kids you not. Those are direct quotes from her great new 2025 book entitled "War on Us: How the War on Drugs and Myths about Addiction Have Created a War on All of Us." 6
JOHN: But you see what you're asking me to do, Brian. If I agree with your arguments, I will suddenly become a sort of enemy of the people. Everyone I hang with is convinced that drugs are the root of all evil -- to say nothing of my wife. (Oh, good God, my wife! What would SHE say if I were to listen to reason on this topic?!)
BRIAN: Well, we've all got to decide what's important in life: whether we should be on the right side of history and common sense, or whether we should voluntarily side with what in retrospect will look like the silliest and most inhumane policy to ever have been inflicted upon a people by their government, namely, the outlawing of Mother Nature and her health-giving bounty. Ah, yes, choices, choices, choices.
JOHN: Besides, if I were to accept your arguments, then the indiscriminate drug testing in which I have so proudly participated in my white-collar job would suddenly become insupportable to me. In fact, I would begin to see it as a grave and almost unforgivable offense against my dignity both as a worker and as a person.
BRIAN: Indeed, you would.
JOHN: Suddenly, I’d have to ask myself: “What gives you guys the right to go on a fishing expedition in my bloodstream for substances of which racist politicians disapprove?”
BRIAN: Beginning to see, eh, John?
JOHN: No, no, I see what you’re doing, Brian, you’re just trying to get me fired up. I think I’d better play it safe and keep hating drugs -- how does that Biblical passage go?... with all my heart and all my soul and all my mind.
BRIAN: Nonsense. Don’t you see, John? When you start outlawing specific psychoactive substances, you are deciding for others how they are allowed to experience life.
JOHN: Oh, leave me alone. I’m not listening. (ululating)
BRIAN: You can ululate all you want, but it won't change the facts. Look: You want to outlaw those substances that are both popular and subject to misuse, right?
JOHN: Right.
BRIAN: But don't you see? The prohibition of a drug has negative consequences in direct proportion to its popularity. The more people that find that particular drug experience enjoyable, the more gangs and gunfire will be created by any attempt to outlaw it. Besides, imagine how presumptuous it is of you to tell those people that they are not "really" having a good time with that drug; they could just as easily tell YOU that you are not "really" having a good time when you throw back alcohol -- a substance which, by the way, is associated with 178,000 deaths every year in America alone.7
JOHN: Fair enough, but--
BRIAN: And if a drug is really dangerous outside of all context, then we should teach and suggest drug alternatives that produce similar results with less potential peril. In other words, we should do something that is consistent with democracy and freedom, John! (Oh, do stop ululating!) Speaking of which, why do you think that this nation elected its first president who does not believe in democracy? Look at me, John, I'm talking to you. They elected him because there are more black Americans locked in US prisons or on probation or parole than were slaves in 1850! 8 Blacks and other minorities are not voting in droves because they're too busy being hassled by a system that was set up to disempower them and ultimately to remove them from the voting rolls!
JOHN: Are you saying that...?
BRIAN: Yes, that's right, John. Your precious drug prohibition is responsible for the end of democracy in America. Now, put THAT in your opium-scorning pipe and smoke it!
[Brian stalks out of room indignantly, relaxing into a normal gait upon reaching the viewing chamber, where he finds the Counselor returned from his own interview with Jane Q Public. John remains where he is, stuttering and spluttering in a vain attempt to formulate a compelling comeback to the litany of devastating insights vouchsafed him by his relentless interlocutor.]
COUNSELOR: Any luck?
BRIAN: Well, he's clearly shaken.
COUNSELOR: Shaken but not stirred, huh?
BRIAN: No, not stirred. At least not enough to change his mind about drug prohibition yet. How about you?
COUNSELOR: Ditto, I'm afraid. I did break down some of her defenses, however. She essentially told me that she could not change her mind on this subject because she would thenceforward feel like "the odd one out" in human society.
BRIAN: Funny. Her husband said the same thing.
COUNSELOR: You know, I sometimes think that there are a lot of people out there who would demand an end to drug prohibition if only enough people stood up first -- but nobody wants to be the first one out of the gate.
BRIAN: Speaking of which, kudos to Carl Hart for starting to lead the way with his book "Drug Use for Grown-Ups." 9
COUNSELOR: I hear THAT.
BRIAN: Except, of course, for the fact that Carl hews to the health industry's party line that "drugs" can play no role in helping people with psychological issues. I guess Carl wants me to be "REALLY" cured of my depression -- which apparently means taking an underperforming and expensive "med" every day of my life, thereby becoming a ward of the healthcare state.
COUNSELOR: Aye, it just shows you how screwed up America is on drugs when even the most "radical" enemies of drug prohibition don't see the obvious benefits of drugs in helping us heal.
BRIAN: My message to Carl is: if drugs like opium and coca and phenethylamines and tryptamines and laughing gas are not REAL cures for my depression, then so much the worse for real cures. 10
COUNSELOR: Word.
BRIAN: I actually wrote a 16-page thesis on this subject an sent it to Carl via snail mail several years ago -- though I need hardly tell you that he never responded. 11
COUNSELOR: So let me get this straight. Carl can use drugs for fun, but people who simply want a little peace of mind have to take "meds" every day of their life, "meds" that are to be doled out on a trimonthly basis in your case by a doctor who is scarcely one-third your own age.
BRIAN: Well, he probably knew that his book would not be tolerated if it questioned the role of psychiatrists and Big Pharma in treating depression. He needed to assure those multi-billion-dollar industries that he was not trespassing on their turf.
COUNSELOR: Uh-oh. It looks like our detainees are getting restless.
BRIAN: Yeah, and we have only one hour left before we have to release these troublemakers, brainwashed or not.
COUNSELOR: What if we remind them that the outlawing of drugs is the outlawing of religion?
BRIAN: I could never make this clown grasp that connection, as obvious as it may be to you and I.
COUNSELOR: Easy. Just introduce him to the following syllogism.
PREMISE 1: America outlaws precisely those drugs that have the potential to inspire and elate.
PREMISE 2: Entire religions have been inspired by the use of drugs that inspire and elate.
CONCLUSION: Drug prohibition is the outlawing of religion -- nay, it is the outlawing of the religious impulse itself!
BRIAN: But this clown wouldn't know a syllogism from a hole in the head.
COUNSELOR: I know it's tough, Brian, but you've got to remember: these drug prohibitionists have grown up in a world in which the media never let them see, hear or read reports about beneficial drug use.
BRIAN: True.
COUNSELOR: Meanwhile, every other movie or TV show that they watch has some throwaway line which implies that drugs can only be used for bad purposes.
BRIAN: That's right. In fact, the very scripts of American sitcoms have been edited by the White House itself to conform with drug-hating ideology. 12
COUNSELOR: It is therefore naturally going to take some work to rescue these guys from the Great American Cult of Drug Demonization.
BRIAN: You're right, we've got to keep trying, whatever the odds. I just hope that someday somebody looks back at our outnumbered efforts and gives us a great-big posthumous thank-you!
COUNSELOR: That's the spirit, Brian. Now, then, ready, set...
BRIAN: Once more unto the breach!
[Counselor and Brian return to their respective interview rooms]
The DEA outlawed MDMA in 1985, thereby depriving soldiers of a godsend treatment for PTSD. Apparently, the DEA staff slept well at night in the early 2000s as American soldiers were having their lives destroyed by IEDs.
The UK just legalized assisted dying. This means that you can use drugs to kill a person, but you still can't use drugs to make that person want to live.
The Drug War is a religion. The "addict" is a sinner who has to come home to the true faith of Christian Science. In reality, neither physical nor psychological addiction need be a problem if all drugs were legal and we used them creatively to counter problematic use.
Check out the 2021 article in Forbes in which a materialist doctor professes to doubt whether laughing gas could help the depressed. Materialists are committed to seeing the world from the POV of Spock from Star Trek.
Wanna show drug warriors the error of their ways? Legalize all less dangerous drugs than alcohol and then deny work to those who test positive for liquor and confiscate their property if beer cans are found on-site.
In "The Book of the Damned," Charles Fort shows how science damns (i.e. excludes) facts that it cannot assimilate into a system of knowledge. Fort could never have guessed, however, how thoroughly science would eventually "damn" all positive facts about "drugs."
This is why I call the drug war 'fanatical Christian Science.' People would rather have grandpa die than to let him use laughing gas or coca or opium or MDMA, etc. etc.
"They have called thee Soma-lover: here is the pressed juice. Drink thereof for rapture." -Rig Veda
(There would be no Hindu religion today had the drug war been in effect in the Punjab 3,500 years ago.)
I've found that no one thinks I "have standing" when I comment about drugs. I'm just a guy who's been turned into a patient for life thanks to drug prohibition. People think that the real experts are the doctors and scientists who profit from the status quo.
Addiction thrives BECAUSE of prohibition, which limits drug choice and discourages education about psychoactive substances and how to use them wisely.
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.
[curtain rises as overture fades]
(up)