There are no killer drugs, only killer drug policies

Homepage of the Drug War Philosopher, Brian Quass

There are no killer drugs, only killer drug policies

an open letter to the Prohibition Blunder website

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

August 13, 2025

Dear Team:

I greatly enjoyed the video hosted by Charles Asher entitled "The Prohibition Blunder: Dismantling a Half-Century Blunder in Half an Hour.¹" The video captured many of the glaringly obvious downsides of drug prohibition. I hope you will not take it amiss, however, if I make a few philosophically oriented comments on your compelling presentation.

1) The video approaches the topic from the point of view of economists -- and this is certainly one valid framework for a productive discussion -- but we need to also approach this topic from a wide variety of additional perspectives as well. Take the chronically depressed, for instance. I have gone a lifetime now without godsend medicine for my depression -- like laughing gas ² , MDMA ³ , phenethylamines, coca, opium , beta-carbolines, etc. -- and been shunted off onto dependence-causing Big Pharma ⁴ ⁵ 'meds' into the bargain -- all because drug prohibition has denied me the right to the medicine that grows at my very feet. And yet folks in my circumstances are never considered stakeholders in the drugs debate, apparently because the materialist scientists behind the psychiatric pill mill ⁶ prefer that we "shut up and take our meds" instead. My ability to handle my own healthcare should be re-affirmed as an inalienable right. Moreover, that right should not depend on the utilitarian ⁷ ⁸ ⁹ arguments of economists, it should be accepted as the first principle that it always used to be.

"The right to chew or smoke a plant that grows wild in nature, such as hemp (marijuana), is anterior to and more basic than the right to vote." --Our Right to Drugs by Thomas Szasz --p xvi ¹⁰

Thomas Jefferson understood this fact. This is why he was rolling in his grave when Ronald Reagan's DEA stomped onto Monticello ¹¹ in 1985 and confiscated the founding father's poppy plants in violation of everything he stood for as a politician ¹².

2) In one sense, prohibition (or at least the prohibitionist mindset) is much more than a "half-century blunder"; the prohibition impulse seems to be deeply rooted in the western psyche. It goes back centuries. A reading of drug histories (like those published by Mike Jay ¹³, Louis Lewin ¹⁴, Jacob Sullum ¹⁵, Jeffrey Singer ¹⁶, Thomas Szasz ¹⁷, Charles Grob ¹⁸, Terence McKenna ¹⁹ and Andrew Weil ²⁰) shows that westerners have had a kneejerk habit over the last 200 years of responding to "hard cases" of drug misuse (or at least of "perceived" drug misuse) by proposing and enacting prohibition laws -- with never a thought to using education and regulation and true drug choice to keep users safe instead. Never one thought.

Here is a case in point:

When W. Golden Mortimer was writing his book "Coca: Divine Plant of the Inca ²¹" in the early 1900s, he solicited coca-related information from his fellow scientists, only to be told -- by the few who even bothered to respond -- that it was immoral of Mortimer to even write on the subject. And so we see that it was already the viewpoint of scientists -- even before the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 -- that ignorance-inspired fear was the best policy when it came to protecting the world against drug misuse: ignorance-inspired fear! How hypocritical and unbecoming of a western world that likes to pride itself on its supposedly scientific approach to life!

3) With respect, your multiple scare quotes about Fentanyl are unhelpful. These citations suggest that Fentanyl is a killer drug, whereas the real killer is drug prohibition. You report, for instance, that:

"A single Fentanyl seizure in Citrus County, Florida, was enough to kill 100,000 people." --Prohibition Blunder ²²

Kids in hospice crying out, 'It hurts!' (abolishthedea.com)

Response: Maybe so. But then that same supply of Fentanyl is also enough to keep hundreds of thousands of children from suffering unnecessarily in hospice -- children whom, in India, for instance, go without morphine ²³ simply because American fearmongers have demonized that drug in the abstract as a "killer" and so rendered it difficult and expensive to prescribe ²⁴.

Don't you see? This is the whole problem with the Drug War, that it encourages us to judge drugs up or down, without regard for context! This is the original sin of the prohibitionist mindset! In reality, there are no killer drugs! This is a superstition of logically challenged prohibitionists. We should not encourage this superstitious attitude by succumbing to this temptation to peg certain drugs as "killers," or as so-called "hard" drugs. Yes, we should criticize drug prohibition for turning Fentanyl into the go-to drug for so-called "recreational" opiate users -- but we should not join the Drug Warrior in damning Fentanyl itself as a villain just because insane drug policy has turned it into the opiate of choice for young white suburban Americans. People can be evil as can social policy, but drugs are inanimate substances. They are evil or good only insofar as context of use makes them so.

By demonizing specific drugs like this, you are playing into the hands of the Drug Warriors. You are basically agreeing with them that there are, indeed, substances that are beyond the pale, from which we must all be protected -- when in reality, all drugs have potential positive uses at some dose for some people in some circumstances, when used alone and/or in a wide variety of combinations. (Even highly toxic substances like botox and cyanide have positive and sensible uses in the healthcare industry.) There are no evil drugs, only evil drug policies -- only policies that make drugs dangerous. Yes, the outlawing of opium led to the use of more potent opiate alternatives, but that is a downside brought about by drug prohibition, not by those alternatives themselves. Those alternative drugs have potential common sense uses of their own, at some dose for some people in some circumstances. We should not demonize them, just because we lack the psychological imagination or historical knowledge to see how they could be of use for others in different circumstances than our own.

This is why I regret your portrayal of Fentanyl as a killer drug, inadvertent as that portrayal may have been on your part. Drug prohibition is all about demonizing certain substances as evil (as killers) outside of all context. This is no way to judge any substance -- based only on its potential misuse by one single demographic -- and a white American demographic at that, one which we have refused "on principle" to educate about safe drug use!

This effort to demonize Fentanyl (as opposed to demonizing the drug prohibition which made Fentanyl use problematic) suggests that the producers of the video do not so much want to end prohibition as they want to move a handful of drugs (like opium and coca) from the "bad" category to the "good" category in the public mind -- but are more than happy to keep highly stigmatized drugs (like crack, meth and Fentanyl) in the "bad" category. This is how the Drug Warrior gets away with preventing research on drugs: by condemning certain drugs as "bad" in advance of use -- when the supposed badness (i.e., the danger of use) is only brought about by drug policy itself.

This is an untenable mindset going forward.

We are surrounded by drugs that we did not even know existed a few hundred years ago: in tree bark, on animal skin, in mycelium, in mushrooms, in lichen, in flower seeds, etc. -- to say nothing of the lab-created drugs that have proliferated with the help of chemists like Alexander Shulgin ²⁵, some of which have truly extraordinary benefits of use -- albeit ones that are invisible to quantitatively oriented scientists. Until we stop trying to judge each new substance out of context, we will be forever playing whack-a-mole with the latest so-called "killer" drug.

The fact is that no drug causes addiction after one use, however. From this fact alone, it follows that even drugs like meth and crack and Fentanyl can be used wisely -- on an intermittent basis. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply has a lack of imagination. They fail to realize that any drug that inspires and elates can be a godsend for the depressed when used intermittently. The fact that I even have to point out this psychologically obvious truth shows how bamboozled Americans have become when it comes to drugs -- or when it comes to simple human psychology, for that matter. But then we live in a world in which materialism ²⁶ rules, which means we ignore all obvious benefits of drug use in search for what science can tell us about that use by looking under a microscope.

Thoreau once noted that "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.²⁷" This is why drugs that inspire and elate have such amazing potential benefits. We all have access to blessed vacations from that despair thanks to Mother Nature's pharmacopoeia and the synthetic drugs inspired thereby! And yet even drug law reformers seem to agree with the Drug Warriors that a substance that CAN be used addictively MUST be used addictively. And so we call such drugs "killers" -- whereas the real killer here is our outlawing of education and drug choice such that it is almost impossible to use drugs wisely! The killer, in other words, is prohibition, not drugs!

AFTERWORD

1) Drugs that have been used for religious purposes have one thing in common: they inspire and elate. From this fact alone, it follows that the outlawing of inspirational medicines is the outlawing of religion -- nay, of the religious impulse itself. And yet when we look at the highly diverse substances that have been listed as Schedule 1 by the mendacious thugs in the DEA, we find that these drugs have nothing in common whatsoever except for the fact that they do, indeed, inspire and elate. This is the sin for which the racist, imperialist and xenophobic Drug Warriors can never forgive such substances. They want to outlaw such drugs for the same reason that Emperor Theodosius outlawed the psychedelic-fueled Eleusinian Mysteries ²⁸ in C.E.²⁹: because they consider them to be a threat to Christianity -- a threat to the bourgeois parochial life of the beer-swilling Drug Warrior.

2) I don't want to be unfair. It is possible to view the video referenced above without coming away with the idea that Fentanyl is evil. It is just that in order to do so, one has to distinguish between what the film producers say (in images, words and text) and what the viewer assumes that they actually meant. Personally, I'm not sure what they actually meant by their repeated allusions to mass deaths via Fentanyl ³⁰ : it does seem to me, however, that they are suggesting that Fentanyl is beyond the pale for everybody merely because its use can prove problematic for young people whom we have refused to educate about drugs and for whom we have outlawed all safer opiates, like opium ³¹ itself.

Notes for essay entitled There are no killer drugs, only killer drug policies: an open letter to the Prohibition Blunder website:

1: “Prohibition Blunder.” 2026. Prohibition Blunder. 2026. https://www.prohibitionblunder.org/. (up)
2: Forbes Magazine's Laughable Article about Nitrous Oxide DWP (up)
3: How the Drug War killed Leah Betts DWP (up)
4: Seife, Charles. 2012. “Is Drug Research Trustworthy?” Scientific American 307 (6): 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1212-56. (up)
5: LaMattina, John. n.d. “Why Is Biopharma Paying 75% of the FDA’s Drug Division Budget?” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2022/09/22/why-is-biopharma-paying-75-of-the-fdas-drug-division-budget/. (up)
6: Antidepressants and the War on Drugs DWP (up)
7: We have an absolute right to use drugs DWP (up)
8: Why John Stuart Mill is irrelevant to the drug debate DWP (up)
9: Drug Prohibition should be protested on principle, not on utilitarian grounds DWP (up)
10: Szasz, Thomas. 1992. Our Right to Drugs. Praeger. (up)
11: The Dark Side of the Monticello Foundation DWP (up)
12: How the DEA Scrubbed Thomas Jefferson's Monticello Poppy Garden from Public Memory alternet.org, 2010 (up)
13: “Artificial Paradises - Mike Jay.” 1999. Mike Jay. May 18, 2025. https://mikejay.net/books/artificial-paradises/. (up)
14: “Phantastica; Narcotic and Stimulating Drugs, Their Use and Abuse : Lewin, Louis, 1850-1929 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.” 2019. Internet Archive. 2019. https://archive.org/details/phantasticanarco00lewi/page/3/mode/1up. (up)
15: Sullum, Jacob. 2025. “Saying Yes by Jacob Sullum: 9781585423187 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books.” PenguinRandomhouse.com. 2025. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/288705/saying-yes-by-jacob-sullum/. (up)
16: https://www.cato.org/people/jeffrey-singer. 2025. “Your Body, Your Health Care.” Cato Institute. April 8, 2025. https://www.cato.org/books/body-health-care. (up)
17: Szasz, Thomas. 1992. Our Right to Drugs. Praeger. (up)
18: Hallucinogens: a reader Grob, M.D., editor, Charles, Penguin Putnam, 2002 (up)
19: McKenna, Terence. 2026. “History Ends in Green.” The Library. 2026. https://www.organism.earth/library/document/history-ends-in-green. (up)
20: Weil, Andrew, and Winifred Rosen. 2004. From Chocolate to Morphine : Everything You Need to Know about Mind-Altering Drugs. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. (up)
21: Coca: Divine Plant of the Incas Mortimer, W. Golden, Ronin Publishing, 1909 (up)
22: Prohibition Blunder (up)
23: Three takeaway lessons from the use of morphine by William Halsted, co-founder of Johns Hopkins Medical School DWP (up)
24: Children of the Drug War: Perspectives on the Impact of Drug Policies on Young People Barrett, Damon, IDEBATE Press, 2011 (up)
25: Shulgin, Alexander T, and Ann Shulgin. 2019. Pihkal : A Chemical Love Story. Berkeley, Ca: Transform Press. (up)
26: How materialists lend a veneer of science to the lies of the drug warriors DWP (up)
27: “A Quote from Walden.” 2025. Goodreads.com. 2025. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/401512-the-mass-of-men-lead-lives-of-quiet-desperation-what. (up)
28: The Eleusinian Mysteries: A Gateway to the Afterlife in Greek Beliefs (up)
29: Eleusis: Myth and Mysteries The Fitzwilliam Museum (up)
30: Fentanyl does not steal loved ones: Drug Laws Do DWP (up)
31: The Truth About Opium by William H. Brereton DWP (up)

read more essays here

Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US

The search for SSRIs has always been based on a flawed materialist premise that human consciousness is nothing but a mix of brain chemicals and so depression can be treated medically like any other physical condition.

Two weeks ago, a guy told me that most psychiatrists believe ECT is great. I thought he was joking! I've since come to realize that he was telling the truth: that is just how screwed up the healthcare system is today thanks to drug war ideology and purblind materialism.

Oregon has decided to go back to the braindead plan of treating substance use as a police matter. Might as well arrest people at home since America has already spread their drug-hating Christian Science religion all over the world.

If there was free speech in America, we would see billboards demanding freedom to use psychoactive substances for religious purposes, or to heal, or to follow-up on the research of William James regarding the nature of human consciousness.

When psychiatrists write about heroin, they characterize dependency as enslavement. When they write about antidepressants, they characterize dependency as a medical duty.

I'm told antidepressant withdrawal is fine because it doesn't cause cravings. Why is it better to feel like hell than to have a craving? In any case, cravings are caused by prohibition. A sane world could also end cravings with the help of other drugs.

At best, antidepressants make depression bearable. We need not settle for such drugs, especially when they are notorious for causing dependence. There are many drugs that elate and inspire. It is both cruel and criminal to outlaw them.

If I have no right to mother nature's bounty, then I surely have no right to manmade guns. If hysterical fearmongering justifies the eradication of the Fourth Amendment, then the Second Amendment should go as well.

Using the billions now spent on caging users, we could end the whole phenomena of both physical and psychological addiction by using "drugs to fight drugs." But drug warriors do not want to end addiction, they want to keep using it as an excuse to ban drugs.

Anytime you hear that a psychoactive drug has not been proven to be effective, it's a lie. People can make such claims only by dogmatically ignoring all the glaringly obvious signs of efficacy.

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

No cookies, no ads paid for by amoral and immoral billionaires (or trillionaires).

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.

The Partnership for a Death Free America is a proud sponsor of The Drug War Philosopher website @ abolishthedea.com.

tombstone for American Democracy, 1776-2024, RIP

(up)

There are no killer drugs, only killer drug policies

an open letter to the Prohibition Blunder website

Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US

Break the ice with a sledgehammer: place this book on your coffee table.

Diary of a Drug Fiend