bird icon for twitter bird icon for twitter


The Drug War is One Big Branding Operation to Demonize Mind and Mood Medicine

a review of essay number 8 in Hallucinogens: A Reader, edited by Charles Grob

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher





June 26, 2025



The following remarks are part of a series of responses to the essays contained in the 2001 book "Hallucinogens: A Reader," edited by Charles Grob1. The comments below are in response to essay number 8: "Using Psychedelics Wisely" by Myron J. Stolaroff


In introducing this essay, Grob tells us that Stolaroff did not believe that hallucinogenic experiences with drugs like LSD and mescaline are for everyone. But the idea that drugs are not for everyone is a highly debatable conclusion, especially if we accept a broad definition of the term "hallucinogenic." The conclusion makes sense at first blush, until one considers the vast array of circumstances and variables that surround drug use -- and the fact that we have never set out to glean all possible benefits from such use. To the contrary, we have resolved a priori to insist that no such benefits exist. In light of this superstitious and anti-scientific backstory, it is premature to claim that drug use of some kind is not for everybody, at least at some times, in some circumstances. How can we "know" such a thing when we dogmatically refuse to study the question with an open mind, when we dogmatically deny in advance that any benefits exist -- and when our otherwise massive arsenal of psychoactive drugs (existing and potential) has been outlawed?

The effects of drugs are so varied and so understudied and so demonized and so dependent on details that I am skeptical of any attempts to make definitive statements about who they may be for and who they may not be for. Most of what we "know" on this topic has been inspired by drug-war propaganda, which has made us fear drugs by playing up our fear for the safety of our kids, kids whom we refuse to educate about the psychoactive nature of the world in which they live. Meanwhile we censor all talk of positive, adult uses for drugs. Benefits for drug use are almost never mentioned in the media, 2 and this censorship is almost never sufficiently recognized by Drug War pundits.

Even are most basic assumptions about drug use are highly debatable. It is piously assumed by most drug pundits that drugs are not for young people -- and yet the use of Ecstasy brought about unprecedented peace, love and understanding on the dance floors of Britain in the 1990s. It is amazing that neither Drug Warriors nor their opponents see any benefit in that drug use! We live on the brink of nuclear annihilation, and yet we have a jaundiced view of the kinds of drugs that could bring the world together. And what about the potential use of empathogens to treat kids who are hotheads and might otherwise shoot up grade schools? Thanks to our brainwashed view of drugs, we would rather have those kids shoot up schools -- and/or commit suicide -- than to "use drugs."

Ralph Metzner, in this "reader" that I am critiquing, sees no benefit in the use of Ecstasy during the rave scene: instead, he sees it as a problem. Apparently, he would have felt much better had the ravers been using hate-facilitating drugs like alcohol. And that is precisely what they were doing after the British MPs cracked down on Ecstasy use in the 1990s in response to the Drug War fearmongering that has so frightened the Ralph Metzners of the world. After the crackdown, the dance floors became so violent that concert organizers had to hire special forces troops to keep the peace. Needless to say, that prohibition-fueled violence was not covered by the media and so not a factor in Metzner's calculus about the propriety of drug use. This is why it cannot be said enough: the Drug War is a branding operation to make us feel a certain way about drugs, not to objectively inform us about them. This is why adult amphetamine users are cast as "meth heads" while kids with ADHD are cast as "good patients" for taking Ritalin. Apparently, mental concentration is good -- but only when the federal government wants you to be able to concentrate.

So you say that drug use is not for young people? I say that I would much prefer that a young person use medicines that elate and inspire rather than to have them commit suicide. And yet the Drug Warrior is so convinced that drug use can only be problematic that we prefer that the severely depressed commit suicide 3 or have brain-damaging shock therapy than to have them use "drugs." This is the result of letting racist politicians control language, turning the once-neutral word drugs into the putdown par excellence. And so the Drug War is one massive media-supported branding operation, designed to make us believe two enormous lies:

1) that there are no upsides to drug use,

and

2) that there are no downsides to drug prohibition.



Notes:

1: Hallucinogens: a reader Grob, M.D., editor, Charles, Penguin Putnam, 2002 (up)
2: How the Media Puts Drugs on Show Trials: an open letter to Bennett Haeberle of NBC 5 Chicago DWP (up)
3: Why Americans Prefer Suicide to Drug Use DWP (up)


Hallucinogens: a Reader, edited by Charles Grob




Essays about the opinions expressed in Hallucinogens by Charles Grob.

  • Cocaine and Ecstasy are not evil
  • Drug Prohibition and the Metaphysical Search for 'Real' Religious Inspiration
  • How Ralph Metzner was bamboozled by the Drug War ideology of substance demonization
  • Sartre and Speed
  • The Drug War is One Big Branding Operation to Demonize Mind and Mood Medicine
  • The metaphysics of drug use and how the drug war outlaws religious liberty
  • The thin line between honesty and fearmongering in the age of the War on Drugs
  • Want to end freedom in America? Just terrify philosophically clueless parents about the boogieman called drugs
  • Why America cracked down on LSD





    • Ten Tweets

    against the hateful war on US




    The Hindu religion was created thanks to the use of a drug that inspired and elated. It is therefore a crime against religious liberty to outlaw substances that inspire and elate.

    If drug war logic made sense, we would outlaw endless things in addition to drugs. Because the drug war says that it's all worth it if we can save just one life -- which is generally the life of a white suburban young person, btw.

    Did the Vedic People have a substance disorder because they wanted to drink enough soma to see religious realities?

    In a free future, newspapers will have philosophers on their staffs to ensure that said papers are not inciting consequence-riddled hysteria through a biased coverage of drug-related mishaps.

    Mad in America solicits personal stories about people trying to get off of antidepressants, but they will not publish your story if you want to use entheogenic medicines to help you. They're afraid their readers can't handle the truth.

    The Drug War is a crime against humanity.

    Well, today's Oregon vote scuttles any ideas I might have entertained about retiring in Oregon.

    Here are some political terms that are extremely problematic in the age of the drug war: "clean," "junk," "dope," "recreational"... and most of all the word "drugs" itself, which is as biased and loaded as the word "scab."

    The so-called opiate crisis is really a drug prohibition crisis.

    Aleister Crowley actually TRIED to get addicted to drugs and found he could not. These things are not inevitable. The fact that there are town drunkards does not mean that we should outlaw alcohol.


    Click here to see All Tweets against the hateful War on Us






    The New York Times is at it again, bashing drugs out of context
    Want to end freedom in America? Just terrify philosophically clueless parents about the boogieman called drugs


    This site uses no cookies! This site features no ads!



    Thanks for visiting The Drug War Philosopher at abolishthedea.com, featuring essays against America's disgraceful drug war. Updated daily.

    Copyright 2025, Brian Ballard Quass Contact: quass@quass.com

    (up)