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."
Your drug war has caused the disappearance of over 60,000 Mexicans over the last 20 years. It has turned inner cities into shooting galleries. It has turned America into a penal colony. It has destroyed the 4th amendment and put bureaucrats in charge of deciding if our religions are "sincere."
Psychedelics and entheogens should be freely available to all dementia patients. These medicines can increase neuronal plasticity and even grow new neurons. Besides, they can inspire and elate -- or do we puritans feel that our loved ones have no right to peace of mind?
Drug testing labs are the modern Inquisitors. We are not judged by the content of our character, but by the content of our digestive systems.
Prohibitionists will me that we're all children when it comes to drugs, and can never -- but never -- use them wisely. That's like saying that we could never ride horses wisely. Or mountain climb. Or skateboard.
Scientists are not the experts on psychoactive medicines. The experts are painters and artists and spiritualists -- and anyone else who simply wants to be all they can be in life. Scientists understand nothing of such goals and aspirations.
Scientists are responsible for endless incarcerations in America. Why? Because they fail to denounce the DEA lie that psychoactive substances have no positive medical uses. This is so obviously wrong that only an academic in an Ivory Tower could believe it.
Endless drugs could help with depression. Any drug that inspires and elates is an antidepressant, partly by the effect itself and partly by the mood-elevation caused by anticipation of use (facts which are far too obvious for materialists and drug warriors to understand -- let alone materialist drug warriors!).
Almost all talk about the supposed intractability of things like addiction are exercises in make-believe. The pundits pretend that godsend medicines do not exist, thus normalizing prohibition by implying that it does not limit progress. It's a tacit form of collaboration.
By reading "Drug Warriors and Their Prey," I begin to understand why I encounter a wall of silence when I write to authors and professors on the subject of "drugs." The mere fact that the drug war inspires such self-censorship should be grounds for its immediate termination.
Drugs like opium and cocaine should come with the following warning: "Outlawing of this product may result in inner-city gunfire, civil wars overseas, and rigged elections in which drug warriors win office by throwing minorities in jail."
(up)