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."
Prohibitionists think that they merely have to use the word "drugs" to win an argument.
Immanuel Kant wrote that scientists are scornful about metaphysics yet they rely on it themselves without realizing it. This is a case in point, for the idea that euphoria and visions are unhelpful in life is a metaphysical viewpoint, not a scientific one.
Doc to Franklin: "I'm sorry, Ben, but I see no benefits of opium use under my microscope. The idea that you are living a fulfilled life is clearly a mistake on your part. If you want to be scientific, stop using opium and be scientifically depressed like the rest of us."
Drug warriors do not want to end "addiction": it's their golden goose. They use the threat of addiction to scare us into giving up our democratic freedoms, like that once supplied by the 4th amendment.
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.
This is why the foes of suicide are doing absolutely nothing to get laughing gas into the hands of those who could benefit from it. Laughing is subjective after all. In the western tradition, we need a "REAL" cure to depression.
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.
All drugs have potential positive uses for somebody, at some dose, in some circumstance, alone or in combination. To decide in advance that a drug is completely useless is an offense to reason and to human liberty.
The best harm-reduction strategy is to re-legalize drugs.
In the 19th century, poets got together to use opium "in a series of magnificent quarterly carouses" (as per author Richard Middleton). When we outlaw drugs, we outlaw free expression.
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)