How drug prohibition damaged my uncle's brain and turned me into a ward of the healthcare state
An open letter to Wade Davis, author of 'The Secret History of Coca'
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
November 24, 2025
Good Day, Wade!
As a chronic depressive, I am bothered by the fact that 400 cases of cocaine toxicity1 should be seen as a reason for outlawing cocaine, or at least of thinking of it as somehow beyond the pale, therapeutically speaking. 49,000 people commit suicide every year in America alone, and surely this has something to do with the fact that America has outlawed a drug that Sigmund Freud himself knew was a veritable "cure" for depression2. And, of course, 178,000 people die from alcohol every year, as per the CDC3. So to create drug policy -- or even drug attitudes -- based on 400 cases is strange.
Cocaine is not universally addictive. Most people use it wisely. Indeed, Freud reported in "On Cocaine" that his cocaine use was self-limiting insofar as the drug seemed to give him an instinctive repugnance toward overuse4.
I think it is seldom noticed that the medical community has a vested interest in demonizing near panaceas like opium and coca. If everyone could cure their depression on their own, who would need psychiatrists? Of course, no one asked the depressed what THEY thought about cocaine. No one thought of giving it to my uncle instead of knowingly damaging his brain with the use of shock therapy.
"The laws that deny healthy people 'recreational' drugs also deny sick people 'therapeutic' drugs." --Thomas Szasz, Our Right to Drugs --p. 675
I take this personally because the outlawing of cocaine has shunted me off onto an antidepressant that is MUCH HARDER to kick than heroin.
The Effexor that I am "on" has a 95% recidivism rate for long-term users6. 95%. I got off the drug after a year of trying -- only to find that I had severe cognitive impairment without the drug. Effexor had mucked about with my brain chemistry in a way that was seemingly irreversible. I had to go back on the drug merely in order to think straight. I remain a patient for life, with all the expensive, time-consuming, and humiliating baggage that such a status entails -- especially as a 67-year-old who has to see a psychiatrist 1/3rd his age every three months in order to be approved for a refill on this underperforming "med" -- and all because America judged cocaine based on its worst possible use, exactly as if we were to judge alcohol by looking only at alcoholics.
Compare this to heroin. A study by Lee Robins showed that only 5% of our heroin-using soldiers in Vietnam required help getting off heroin when they returned to the States7. 5%. Nor did they find that they had brain damage after doing so.
For these reasons and many, many others, I consider drug prohibition to be a crime against humanity. It literally keeps me from healing, from taking care of my own health.
In response to a tweet that "some drugs cannot be used wisely for recreational purposes": The problem is, most people draw such conclusions based on general impressions inspired by a media that demonizes drugs. In reality, it's hard to imagine a drug that cannot theoretically be used wisely for recreation at some dose, in some context.
"Dope Sick"? "Prohibition Sick" is more like it. The very term "dope" connotes imperialism, racism and xenophobia, given that all tribal cultures have used "drugs" for various purposes. "Dope? Junk?" It's hard to imagine a more intolerant, dismissive and judgmental terminology.
Someone tweeted that fears about a Christian Science theocracy are "baseless." Tell that to my uncle who was lobotomized because they outlawed meds that could cheer him up -- tell that to myself, a chronic depressive who could be cheered up in an instant with outlawed meds.
We should place prohibitionists on trial for destroying inner cities.
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.
We need a few brave folk to "act up" by shouting "It's the drug war!" whenever folks are discussing Mexican violence or inner city shootings. The media treat both topics as if the violence is inexplicable! We can't learn from mistakes if we're in denial.
We might as well fight for justice for Christopher Reeves: he was killed because someone was peddling that junk that we call horses. The question is: who sold Christopher that horse?! Who encouraged him to ride it?!
America never ended prohibition. It just redirected prohibition from alcohol to all of alcohol's competitors.
They drive to their drug tests in pickup trucks with license plates that read "Don't tread on me." Yeah, right. "Don't tread on me: Just tell me how and how much I'm allowed to think and feel in this life. And please let me know what plants I can access."
The FDA tells us that MDMA is not safe. This is the same FDA that signs off on Big Pharma drugs whose advertised side effects include death itself.
In response to a tweet that "some drugs cannot be used wisely for recreational purposes": The problem is, most people draw such conclusions based on general impressions inspired by a media that demonizes drugs. In reality, it's hard to imagine a drug that cannot theoretically be used wisely for recreation at some dose, in some context.
