Drugs Are Actually Good, Says Columbia Professor

[Snafu in the Void]

....since you guys want to defend recreational opioid use as ok or good. Let's try crack cocaine. What "therapeutic" and good use is there to be had? What is the chance someone is going to do crack on the weekend 1x per month and leave it at that....and that no dumb decisions will be made while on crack or coming down from it?

Please only respond if you've tried crack.

I think of it as, perhaps a rather extreme analogy of playing Russian roulette

Doing it isn't some guarantee of immediate addiction, but, the more you do it, the more chances of that bullet of addiction or tragedy

after the 3rd or 4th time smoking crack ... yeah, I think 95% of people are fucked at that point.

Immunity to drug abuse is not fictional, but, the way Dr. Hart mentions it, it sounds like he is describing a superpower to me... but I'm a polyaddict and I don't particularly have one single drug of choice. Love them all. So I'm a bit biased I guess.

 

[thegreenhand]

Let's try crack cocaine. What "therapeutic" and good use is there to be had?

Perhaps like mdma it can ease the walls we put up and allow one to share deep rooted things with their loved ones. I’ve had experience like that on amphetamine and I’ve read anecdotal reports of similar things on powder cocaine. I don’t see why crack cocaine couldn’t have this property too

What is the chance someone is going to do crack on the weekend 1x per month and leave it at that....and that no dumb decisions will be made while on crack or coming down from it?

I’d say that depends on the user’s life circumstances and intention behind the crack use. As for the dumb decisions, alcohol ought to be banned too under that logic

Trying to assign some kind of therapeutic psychological benefit to opioids and crack as if they are mushrooms is just flat out asanine.

Agree to disagree. Drugs affect people differently. We can’t expect mushrooms to provide psychological benefit to all not can we expect certain individuals to not find benefit from other substances. People use these things for a reason.

I’m glad you’ve found mushrooms beneficial to your well being, i have too. Others might find the experience of heroin/meth/cocaine to be beneficial to them. Who are we to deny someone the option to choose?

Dabbling in crack and heroin might be dandy if you're very far from a drug addict as Hart seems to be...but what's the point then? If you have a shred of addictive propensity what's the risk of some IV heroin or crack experimentation?

The point of dabbling in crack or heroin if you’re not an addict might simply be curiosity, pleasure, any number of things. Also it should be noted Dr. Hart believes that under legal regulation IV drugs should not be available

This author seems to just be taking a shit on addicts and the fact that millions of them exist by teasing that he can casually experiment with highly addictive drugs without consequence.

I think he has expressed much more compassion for addicts than most. He believes that addiction is often a result of societal and life circumstances and drug use is inevitable. The compassionate thing to do imo is provide clean and safe drugs to all who choose to consume them.

And many people can experiment with these drugs without consequences, that’s a primary point of his book. That only ~30% of users do any kind of drug will go on to become addicted. Not even a majority of them. He provides his own personal use as an example of a successful individual (tenured Ivy League professor) drug use, not to tease

after the 3rd or 4th time smoking crack ... yeah, I think 95% of people are fucked at that point.

I think a lot of folks say this as it may match their own experiences, but consider the many people who use crack (for example) who are not addicted. I’m sure they’ve used it more than 3 or 4 times and are not fucked

 

[jasperkent]

We have alcoholics. Yet one can buy alcohol almost anywhere, almost any time, legally.
Tobacco kills. This is undisputed. We can buy it in many forms 24/7, legally, everywhere.
My issue is with the hypocrisy. If society or the government feel the need to protect me from myself, then get serious about it.
Alcohol & tobacco kill WAY more people than all other drugs combined. And I'm a confirmed smoker and drinker.
But really, I have the basic human right to injest any goddamn thing I want to.
If my behavior has an adverse effect on someone else, address that behavior directly. Not via the substance itself.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

Perhaps like mdma it can ease the walls we put up and allow one to share deep rooted things with their loved ones. I’ve had experience like that on amphetamine and I’ve read anecdotal reports of similar things on powder cocaine. I don’t see why crack cocaine couldn’t have this property too



I’d say that depends on the user’s life circumstances and intention behind the crack use. As for the dumb decisions, alcohol ought to be banned too under that logic


Agree to disagree. Drugs affect people differently. We can’t expect mushrooms to provide psychological benefit to all not can we expect certain individuals to not find benefit from other substances. People use these things for a reason.

I’m glad you’ve found mushrooms beneficial to your well being, i have too. Others might find the experience of heroin/meth/cocaine to be beneficial to them. Who are we to deny someone the option to choose?


The point of dabbling in crack or heroin if you’re not an addict might simply be curiosity, pleasure, any number of things. Also it should be noted Dr. Hart believes that under legal regulation IV drugs should not be available


I think he has expressed much more compassion for addicts than most. He believes that addiction is often a result of societal and life circumstances and drug use is inevitable. The compassionate thing to do imo is provide clean and safe drugs to all who choose to consume them.

And many people can experiment with these drugs without consequences, that’s a primary point of his book. That only ~30% of users do any kind of drug will go on to become addicted. Not even a majority of them. He provides his own personal use as an example of a successful individual (tenured Ivy League professor) drug use, not to tease


I think a lot of folks say this as it may match their own experiences, but consider the many people who use crack (for example) who are not addicted. I’m sure they’ve used it more than 3 or 4 times and are not fucked

1) none of my arguments are against drug legalization. I think they should all be legal...psychoactive drugs including psychiatric drugs of all kinds are medically and biologically deleterious. It's a scientific fact. Look up the incidence of real side effects and complications of use of any approved drug even used under medical guidelines. There are problems.

Oh so Hart is against IV use? What a hypocrite we know some drug rushes can only be had via IV and under his paradigm where nobody gets addicted to IV pharma speedballs and goes overboard...you're only using once a month for "therapeutic" purposes...so IV once a month is perfectly medically safe...if they IV saline or vit B shots that often you'd be fine.

Why is he for drug use by other ROAs but not IV? IM is OK? He's not consistent at all in his beliefs it seems that they're just his musings and nothing representative about human populations.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

after the 3rd or 4th time smoking crack ... yeah, I think 95% of people are fucked at that point.

Lol. And 90% of them were fucked on the first hit ever. Crack really be like that.

 

[thegreenhand]

Oh so Hart is against IV use?

He has been sort of unclear but yes he said that perhaps the best mode for legalization might only be oral and nasal formulations

Personally I think if we’re gonna legalize them all, IV should be available too

none of my arguments are against drug legalization. I think they should all be legal...psychoactive drugs including psychiatric drugs of all kinds are medically and biologically deleterious. It's a scientific fact. Look up the incidence of real side effects and complications of use of any approved drug even used under medical guidelines. There are problems.

Oh i know that all drugs can be deleterious, I’ve never doubted that. Just perhaps doubted the claims of how intensely deleterious certain substances are

 

[acklac7]

It's really, really unfortunate Dr. Hart won't speak-up in this thread. A whole bunch of you would be instantly silenced.

 

[Imaginarium]

I hear you @acklac7. Personally, I think the thread has diverged in places, away from discussions directly based on what is said in the book and the original Vice article (which is okay and can lead to insightful and engaging discussions). Some of the criticisms presented in the posts above are a result of not critically engaging with the original sources and/or are straw-man fallacies (i.e. takes Dr Hart's point of view, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of way, and then criticises the distortion, as if that is really the claim he is makes in the original source). I've highlighted examples of these types of criticisms in my previous posts.

I can't speak on his behalf, but in response to

It's really, really unfortunate Dr. Hart won't speak-up in this thread. A whole bunch of you would be instantly silenced

Dr Hart has been addressing many of these criticisms for years (decades) now, both openly in public and in the scientific and popular literature. I can imagine how tiring this could be, especially, if he were to respond to criticisms of things he doesn't claim.

In my opinion, I think it's important to remember Dr Hart is human and capable of mistakes - as we all are. In my experience, he's humble and will acknowledge when he's said something that is not backed up by evidence. For example, the presentation he gave in Switzerland. Dr Hart said “Chronic use of the drug undoubtedly produces physical deterioration; it damages your body.”, or something similar to that, which he acknowledges was not evidence-based and at the time, outside the scope of his expertise.

Personally, and based on talks he's given, I could imagine he wouldn't be to phased about some misinformed criticisms, but would rather continue to pursue a life of happiness and advocate for the rights and well-being of marginalised people who use drugs (e.g. Black PWUD). See Hart (2020) as an example. This is just my thinking though and might not reflect how Dr Hart feels.

 

[acklac7]

In my experience, he's humble and will acknowledge when he's said something that is not backed up by evidence.

Yeah, he's a super humble, super-sweet guy, super-funny guy. He's not arguementative, or pretentious, or anything of that nature, I mean he's just a great overall person. I think alot of his detractors would feel super-bad once they found out who he is.

 

[thegreenhand]

Personally, I think the thread has diverged in places, away from discussions directly based on what is said in the book and the original Vice article (which is okay and can lead to insightful and engaging discussions). Some of the criticisms presented in the posts above are a result of not critically engaging with the original sources and/or are straw-man fallacies (i.e. takes Dr Hart's point of view, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of way, and then criticises the distortion, as if that is really the claim he is makes in the original source). I've highlighted examples of these types of criticisms in my previous posts.

Agreed

This is just my thinking though and might not reflect how Dr Hart feels.

This is also important to keep in mind (really talking about myself here lol) as anyone goes to defend his positions



But good civil discussion folks, keep it up

 

[Skorpio]

When reading "Drug Use for Adults" my biggest issue is that his criteria for responsible drug use really winnows down the field.

He talks about how people with mental illness and previous addiction would not be examples of responsible drug users. I think this is a good clarification, but definately limits it's real world application. Furthermore, some aspects of this concept would require quite an amount of foresight.

I guess at its core the statement is a little tautological; don't do drugs if you aren't a person who can handle drugs. I think if we were able to truly know that we couldn't handle a certain drug a priori, then very few of us would have issues with addiction.

 

[thegreenhand]

He talks about how people with mental illness and previous addiction would not be examples of responsible drug users

I had similar criticisms when reading it too

I’m of that things like depression and anxiety are brought in by life circumstances and are not “diseases”, much like how he classified addiction

The argument is circular as you’ve noted

I think this could be corrected by elaborating on other psychiatric diagnoses and relating them to his model of addiction but I guess that’s outside of the scope of the book

 

[G_Chem]

I can kind of see in a way what Carl is trying to do, in his efforts to normalize and help others better understand the more stigmatized drugs he’s doing his best to bring comparisons.

For instance, yes one use of heroin won’t have nearly the same impact or risk as 3 weeks of daily morphine. But… Most normal folks would think otherwise.

The comparison of amphetamine and meth, while I don’t agree with. He’s not technically wrong. Research shows the two often can’t be told apart when dosage is accounted for.. I can tell the difference but I’m me lol. This is just another comparison to help bring about the idea that the illegal drugs aren’t too far from the legal ones that we accept.

I used to be a heroin addict yet I have no problem having heroin around or in my possession these days. Still have grams of benzoylmorphine from 2yrs ago that I haven’t touched since my surgery. I think legalizing while increasing some issues would overall outweigh the problems we have now.

-GC

 

[Burnt Offerings]

@LucidSDreamr no one is saying that using heroin (or any other opioid, or any other drug for that matter) is entirely without risk, even if we separate out the issue of legality. If you regularly (ab)use ANY drug, there are risks associated with that behavior.

I mention this because I get the impression, when reading some of your posts, that the implication is, people are saying that there are no risks associated with regular usage of narcotics etc, and that everyone should have a devil-may-care, let's-all-go-do-drugs! attitude, but that's emphatically NOT what I'm saying. Just to be clear on that point.

With that being said, I do think that the class of drugs that heroin belongs to is relatively soft on the body, with relatively few side effects. The risks you mentioned associated with the consistent usage of opioid drugs, like your sexuality going to sleep on you, could just as easily be said of substances which are legal and available to consumers today, like alcohol or antidepressants/other psychiatric medication. You can take the brains of two people, one a ride-or-die degenerate junkie who lived and died by the needle and couldn't go a single day without slamming a million bags of dope, and the other a person who had never even used a single recreational drug in their entire life, and there's a good chance that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two. I've often thought that the physiological basis for opioid addiction is overstated, both by people who use these drugs (i.e., "I can't possibly stop using these drugs because then I'll be 'sick'") and those on the outside (addiction treatment resources etc.)

The point about being unable to feel pleasure or happiness anymore because you've nuked your brain with too many drugs...the obvious solution to such a problem, which went unmentioned, is to stop using drugs for a period of time. When a particular drug loses its effect, that's one of two possible options...the other option is to increase your dose and keep going, but that's unsustainable in the long term. It reminds me of a topic I saw on this website, which went along the lines of, "if you could choose to be high all the time, what drug would you choose?" To me the idea of being "high all the time" is a ridiculous and nonsensical notion, because you only get "high" when there's a LOW (or at least a "normal") to compare it to. If you're high all the time then being high is your new baseline state of existence, and the whole question becomes meaningless. That's why tolerance breaks are important, and why every single drug user on planet earth can be divided into 2 camps once this inevitable event happens (i.e., you take the drug you normally enjoy, at the dose your normally enjoy, but it fails to have the desired effect): you either 1) pump the breaks on your usage a bit, or 2) escalate your usage. They're not absolute categories...just because you're able to control your usage at one time in your life doesn't mean that that'll always be the case, but that (or the fact, as I mentioned, that ALL substances possess risks, and there is no "free lunch" when it comes to drugs) doesn't mean that people should be denied the freedom associated with being able to choose what they ingest into their own bodies

And, finally, I don't think that using an opioid drug, in a legalized permissive environment, will necessarily lead you to IV drug usage, anymore than having a beer will inevitably lead you to waking up in the morning and pounding down three shots of Jack Daniels just to feel normal.

 

[acklac7]

I agree that some of his claims can be dubious. For example, he once said that meth and adderall are the same drug. While I agree that amphetamine is very similar to methamphetamine such a simplification as equating the two isn’t correct

The comparison of amphetamine and meth, while I don’t agree with. He’s not technically wrong. Research shows the two often can’t be told apart when dosage is accounted for.. I can tell the difference but I’m me lol. This is just another comparison to help bring about the idea that the illegal drugs aren’t too far from the legal ones that we accept.

Dr. Hart is a radically intelligent individual. He's limited on what he can say in regards to Meth: He knows it's a Miracle Medication (In Low Doses). He knows it's vastly different from adderall. He just can't say it. Instead, he paints the two as the same in an attempt to normalize it (Meth) in the minds of the masses. Genius move.

 

[acklac7]

And I'll just leave this here:

 

[acklac7]

Natural Selection doesn't impact Brain development everyone: Drugs impact Brain development.

To much of a Drug? Destroys the Body. Destroys the Brain.

Just enough? Heals the Body. Heals the Brain.

"Drug use for Grown-Ups"

 

[Lysosomalstorage]

Meth and amphetamine base are not even in the same ball park, sure the effects are the same but the scale is planetary Vs universal.

Loving the additional of mescaline as the first missing link as you are probably genuinely onto something there. I grew peyote and Peruvian torch and cooked them into a disgusting goo, dipped toilet paper into it and swallowed (by far one of the most intensely horrible things I've ever done, and I've unblocked Victorian septic tanks. Y hand before) and honestly out of every psychedelic I've done apart from DMT, mescaline held the most perfectly monumental shift in the way I thought and understood things for weeks afterwards. I imagine the only thing that could top it is ayahuasca. Definitely something seriously verging on neurogenesis in mescaline.

 

[acklac7]

Meth and amphetamine base are not even in the same ball park, sure the effects are the same but the scale is planetary Vs universal.

I know that. Dr. Hart knows that. Trust me. He's trying to normalize it for a reason.

Loving the additional of mescaline as the first missing link as you are probably genuinely onto something there. I grew peyote and Peruvian torch and cooked them into a disgusting goo, dipped toilet paper into it and swallowed (by far one of the most intensely horrible things I've ever done, and I've unblocked Victorian septic tanks. Y hand before) and honestly out of every psychedelic I've done apart from DMT, mescaline held the most perfectly monumental shift in the way I thought and understood things for weeks afterwards. I imagine the only thing that could top it is ayahuasca. Definitely something seriously verging on neurogenesis in mescaline.

Did you know Mescaline isn't a Psychedelic? It's a ring-substituted amphetamine:

Mescaline - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

Here's a tip for everyone: Be on the look out for super-strong, super potent, super mind-altering drugs that have been around since forever but for which there are basically zero documented human studies (Meth, Mescaline, etc). There's a reason for that...

 

[Lysosomalstorage]

It's still very much a hallucinogenic drug which is what psychodelic denotes. It's not an actual class or drug or anything.