to glorify liquor while demonizing all of its competitors
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
July 16, 2025
This morning I passed an 18-wheeler on I-81 that was painted red-white-and-blue and blaring the patriotic blurb that "Budweiser supports our military veterans." What hypocrisy! America's most dangerous drug, a drug that kills 178,000 a year, is able to wrap itself up in the flag and portray itself as lamb's milk in broad daylight, and this in a world in which we demonize all of liquor's competitors as evil dead-ends!
This absurd state of affairs tells us about more than just the problems with the Drug War: it tells us that there is a problem with America's dependence on propaganda -- which is to say public relations. After decades of television ads inspired and powered by the malevolent use of propaganda in World War II, Americans no longer know the facts about any subject -- instead, they know how they FEEL about those subjects. Take Coke, for instance. People do not prefer the soda because they prefer its taste to rivals: they prefer its taste to rivals because the endless Coca-Cola PR campaigns have associated the use of the substance with all things bright and beautiful -- with all positive human aspiration. Coke never tries to sell Coke: they try to sell a lifestyle, a mindset.
This manipulation of feelings might be considered innocent enough in the commercial realm, but America's use of PR is not limited to "pushing product." PR is also used to make us love or hate things according to the prejudices of racist politicians. American drug law is based on how we feel about substances based on the media-controlled flow of information on any given topic. In other words, democracy itself has gone awry thanks to the way that propaganda tactics have been embraced not just by Wall Street, but by demagogue politicians in Washington, D.C. Propaganda is the problem here -- from which it follows that we need to question the benefits of unbridled capitalism 1 to the extent that it relies on such feeling-mongering. Feelings now run the country, not principles.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to specify rights that could not be taken away on the grounds of expediency and fearmongering. And yet Americans have been so successfully indoctrinated to fear drugs that we have now abandoned a wide variety of constitutional freedoms (the freedom of religion 2, the freedom from unreasonable search, the freedom of free speech, etc.) thanks to the very fearmongering against which the Bill of Rights was supposed to protect us. America thus needs a new constitutional amendment, one which tells us that constitutional amendments must be taken seriously, that the American republic should be governed based on principles and not on demagogue-inspired hysteria.
I am not, of course, suggesting that liquor should be outlawed -- rather that all substances should be treated like liquor: that is, as being potentially dangerous but capable of being used wisely. The Drug Warrior on the other hand is determined to characterize all of liquor's competitors as "beyond the pale," and this should bother neo-Liberals and conservatives alike, for that is precisely the approach to "drug use" that the Spanish brought with them to the New World half a millennia ago. They had no problem outlawing religions back then -- and today's Drug Warriors are just as indifferent to the basic rights of others. They do not see the need for mental and emotional improvement with the help of godsend medicines: why should others? Plus ça change...
Being a lifetime patient is not the issue: that could make perfect sense in certain cases. But if I am to be "using" for life, I demand the drug of MY CHOICE, not that of Big Pharma and mainstream psychiatry, who are dogmatically deaf to the benefits of hated substances.
Opium and cocaine have a vast host of potential rational uses -- yet we all have to pretend otherwise in the age of the Drug War.
Reagan paid a personal price for his idiocy however. He fell victim to memory loss from Alzheimer's, after making a career out of demonizing substances that can grow new neurons in the brain!
If MAPS wants to make progress with MDMA they should start "calling out" the FDA for judging holistic medicines by materialist standards, which means ignoring all glaringly obvious benefits.
There are a potentially vast number of non-addictive drugs that could be used strategically in therapy. They elate and "free the tongue" to help talk therapy really work. Even "addictive" drugs can be used non-addictively, prohibitionist propaganda notwithstanding.
The Thomas Jefferson Foundation is a drug war collaborator. They helped the DEA confiscate Thomas Jefferson's poppy plants in 1987.
Health is not a quality, it's a balance. To decide drug legality based on 'health' grounds thus opens a Pandora's box of different points of view.
I have yet to find one psychiatrist who acknowledges the demoralizing power of being turned into a patient for life. They never list that as a potential downside of antidepressant use.
SWAT raids have increased by 15,000 percent from the late 1970s to today, resulting in 50,000 to 80,000 SWAT raids annually in the US alone. --War On Us
People say shrooms should not be used by those with a history of "mental illness." But that's one of the greatest potential benefits of shrooms! (They cured Stamets' teenage stuttering.) Some folks place safety first, but if I did that, I'd die long before using mother nature.
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)