In such a short piece (under 200 pages), Robert C. Fuller has managed to cover a lot of ground in his historical study of drug use in the US. Whilst his conception of religious drug use is sometimes quite broad (i.e. wine and coffee), his ideas and arguments are so forcibly put that it is hard to disagree over the many issues he raises. Fuller takes his cue from various fields such as religion, neurology, psychiatry or anthropology and concludes his book by pointing the pros and cons of drug-induced spirituality in a perfectly eloquent and objective way.
The only objection I would raise is against his claim that Huxley, Leary, Alpert, Watts, Smith and Ginsberg were all instructing the masses and were the 'closest thing to shamans that middle-class America ever had'. And further on: 'We can only assume that such proselyting by the likes of Watts, Smith, Ginsberg and Leary prompted others to explore the essential and active ingredients of the mystical experience for themselves' (86). Huxley was against proselyting and thought psychedelics were 'for the best and the brightest', not for the masses. Watts was more on Huxley's side than on Leary's. Huxley, Watts, and Smith were all very enthusiastic about the potential of psychedelics, but when it came to proselyting, Leary, Alpert and Ginsberg were a lot more competent. The only real guru-like figure was Leary.
Apart from a few French words here and there (nothing major, though), his writing is very clear and will appeal to scholars of religious history as well as anybody curious to know more about such a fascinating subject.
