neonpomegranate's review against another edition
5.0
Such a relief to read. And by perhaps the only person who could write such a thing. I’m pretty disinterested in high status, except when it’s used to say something absolutely no one else could be safe to say, as is the case here.
I want everyone to read this book.
I want everyone to read this book.
rick2's review against another edition
4.0
Dr Carl Hart bills himself as a responsible, functioning member of society, who happens to use illegal drugs for self improvement and recreation. This book examines the history of drug policy in the US, drug policies of other countries, and a fair bit of Dr. Harts first hand experiences.
I am a moderately responsible member of society who doesn’t use drugs, and I thought it was an illuminating and well done book. The discussions of what actually constitute “harm-reduction” and the separation of dogma from research will stay with me for a long time. I’m maybe a bit cautious to just accept the what seems like a conclusion of “legalize it all and have better public safely” but I think this book is a convincing step in that direction.
I am a moderately responsible member of society who doesn’t use drugs, and I thought it was an illuminating and well done book. The discussions of what actually constitute “harm-reduction” and the separation of dogma from research will stay with me for a long time. I’m maybe a bit cautious to just accept the what seems like a conclusion of “legalize it all and have better public safely” but I think this book is a convincing step in that direction.
treyhunner's review against another edition
5.0
While reading this book I realized I have so many assumptions about drugs that I've never really questioned. This has definitely given me things to think about, including the simplistic framing of "drugs are bad" when it comes to cocaine, heroine, and even meth and PCP (which I really had assumed *were* simply bad).
beak's review against another edition
2.0
Certainly didn't end up being my cup of tea.
I really like the premise of the book - that all types of drugs can be used in ways that contribute to your life in a positive way, but the presentation of this was a letdown.
Dr. Hart's argument boils down to 'I use drug x and it benefits me without harming me, therefore...'. He (rightly) speaks a lot about media misrepresentation of the impacts of drugs, and (rightly) speaks to how drugs being criminalized causes much of the harm associated with drug use in many cases. I can get along with all of this so far.
My beef here is that throughout the book you will find under-emphasized disclaimers that, as written in the epilogue, "the type of drug use described in this book should be limited to healthy, responsible adults". This disclaimer intuitively makes sense but opens up such a can of worms as to discredit much of what he states in the first place. For example, with the current understanding of the relationship between trauma and addictions, does Dr. Hart define someone with historical trauma as not being in good health? The omission of a conversation on his definitions of health strikes me as ultimately irresponsible. I think there was value to be had in digging into this, and the book would've benefited greatly from doing so.
Ultimately, to me, this book just felt rudderless. I did find it interesting to hear someone speak so openly about moderate use of heavy drugs. I hope this opens up cultural conversations about how drugs can be used and destigmatized, but I'd have been just as happy reading that in an article vs a full book.
I really like the premise of the book - that all types of drugs can be used in ways that contribute to your life in a positive way, but the presentation of this was a letdown.
Dr. Hart's argument boils down to 'I use drug x and it benefits me without harming me, therefore...'. He (rightly) speaks a lot about media misrepresentation of the impacts of drugs, and (rightly) speaks to how drugs being criminalized causes much of the harm associated with drug use in many cases. I can get along with all of this so far.
My beef here is that throughout the book you will find under-emphasized disclaimers that, as written in the epilogue, "the type of drug use described in this book should be limited to healthy, responsible adults". This disclaimer intuitively makes sense but opens up such a can of worms as to discredit much of what he states in the first place. For example, with the current understanding of the relationship between trauma and addictions, does Dr. Hart define someone with historical trauma as not being in good health? The omission of a conversation on his definitions of health strikes me as ultimately irresponsible. I think there was value to be had in digging into this, and the book would've benefited greatly from doing so.
Ultimately, to me, this book just felt rudderless. I did find it interesting to hear someone speak so openly about moderate use of heavy drugs. I hope this opens up cultural conversations about how drugs can be used and destigmatized, but I'd have been just as happy reading that in an article vs a full book.
isabellesbooks's review against another edition
DNF at 60%. Could have pushed through the rest, but I am relaxing my stance on not finishing books I don't enjoy. I would give this 3/5 stars: it was just okay. Nothing exceptional, kinda boring and repetitive. I am not a drug user but was looking for a viewpoint from someone who is (and I found it; this man is very very passionate about drugs). I think I will stick with the SSRIs for now kids
kezw's review against another edition
3.0
ok I've just had one of the most draining days of my entire life so idk how coherent this is going to be but I'll try my best because I do have a lot of thoughts about this book!
I'll start with something positive: there a lot of insightful commentary in this book on the intersection between drug laws/law enforcement and racism/classism which I wasn’t necessarily expecting, but found to be an incredibly valuable part of the reading experience. the author really hit the nail on the head re: a lot of harmful drug use and demonization of drug users being a symptom of much deeper systematic issues and that was definitely a vital thing to touch on for a book like this.
I will say upfront that I do use drugs recreationally and I agree strongly with many of the author's main points. drug laws and the war on drugs ARE a draconian joke and they do cause far more harm than good. scientific literature on drugs DOES tend to be biased and misrepresentative due to the inherent bias many people hold against drugs that have historically been illegal. some drugs ARE unfairly stigmatized more than others. driugs SHOULD be legalized (or at the very least decriminalized) and regulated. however, what I found incredibly frustrating about this book was the lack of genuine acknowledgement of the negative effects of certain drugs, especially in the long term. it felt more than a little short sighted and in my opinion actually acted against the author in his arguments because it made his perspective seem very one-note and kind of fanatical and self-centered. overall, I feel like nuance and balance were really thrown out the window. I find this to be a massive shame because there was a lot of good content here and as such there was a great opportunity to educate readers who have a healthy curiosity about drugs but are perhaps inexperienced with them and less well-versed about how they work. we got a lot of rave reviews about how awesome they can be, which is great - BUT the mark was totally missed in terms of discussing the ugly reality of the other side of the coin. there was a lot of the author completely decrying critical views of drugs with no acknowledgement of the full or partial accuracy of certain claims, and there was also a noticeable degree of uncertainty riddled throughout the author’s assertions - he would deny the accuracy of negative studies or statements about drugs, and then justify his counter-arguments with flimsy words like “probably”, “possibly”, and “maybe”, with no substantiated, evidence-based backup (which is ironically what he was roasting drug-critical scientists for doing - making assertions and assumptions without real evidence, or without considering all of the information available). I'll go into this in a bit more detail later, but yeah, the complete lack of balance in this book was a major turn off for me.
I also want to touch on how, even though the author claims all drugs are equal and none are more objectionable or worthy of judgement than others, the way the chapters about different classes of drug were written betrayed a totally different ideology. for example, the section on psychedelics, which the author admitted to not being overly experienced with, seemed to rag on more about the contemptuous and moralistic nature of psychedelic users than anything else, which was a little overblown. don't get me wrong, there are 100% cringy psychedelic users who think their use of lsd or shrooms or whatever else makes them into some transcended being and/or who believe that these drugs are more “acceptable” than others, and I agree with the author's point about how it seems to be becoming socially acceptable to take psychedelics for spiritual or healing reasons, but not just to have fun (which is a personal bugbear of mine lol because at this time in my life fun and enjoyment are my main motivations in the pursuit of psychedelic experiences - the spiritual stuff has done its dash for me). it is however worth considering that lsd and shrooms in particular are not neurotoxic to any known degree, do not promote any kind of physical dependency, and in fact don’t really have any known long term health effects when used in moderation. I'm not sure the same can be said about many other mainstream drugs. maybe that’s part of the reason why they’re more “acceptable” than say, heroin. and that brings me back around to my point about the author failing to touch on the dark side of the drugs he discussed. heroin IS physically addictive, relatively easy to overdose on, is prone to contamination or cutting with horrifically dangerous replacements like fentanyl, and one of its major routes of administration is dangerous and bears risks all on its own. the author was really very blasé about the negative effects of heroin. he is clearly very fond of the drug (and opioids in general) and this was made glaringly obvious by the way he skipped over or attempted to explain away all the complications and very real risks associated with them, even moreso than he did with other drug classes. he was kind of obsessed with removing responsibility for harm from heroin, laying blame everywhere except on the drug itself. all of his assessments about potential harm seemed to go something like “sure it could be bad but it probably won’t be you mix it with different drugs/have too much/lack awareness or education about the drug and those people are in the minority!” (which i think is a questionable assertion). and don't even get me started on his opioid withdrawal experiment - you should have seen my face reading about how he found that it "wasn't that bad" and that how hard it is is simply exaggerated. like.. sir, your experience is not everyone else's experience, and experimentally putting yourself into a state of withdrawal intentionally and in a controlled environment is VERY different to being addicted to a drug for years and being forced to withdraw from it. it was just a lot. I should clarify here that morally I do not at all think a heroin user is any more reprehensible than an lsd user, but I do think it’s foolhardy to act as if the drugs (and indeed, all drugs) should be viewed as fully equivalent in the public eye.
the author added what was essentially a footnote in the epilogue about how only completely healthy people should use drugs recreationally which seemed like a major cop out. realistically, I'm willing to hedge my bets that the number of 100% physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually stable people in the world is very, very low. on top of that, for some people, regardless of mental, physical, or spiritual state, recreational drug use with positive outcomes isn’t possible for any number of reasons. I've had friends who have had absolutely nightmarish experiences after smoking half a joint, for example. some drugs just don't *go* with certain people. there's SO much nuance to it, so much more than just "only healthy people should do what I do", and that's why a more comprehensive and balanced viewpoint should have been taken in this book. the author talked a lot about his own experiences and how great they were throughout the book - and don't get me wrong, I love reading about people's experiences - but things are just.. so much more complex than that. I thought it was honestly super weird that he oversimplified it that much and it turned this book into more of a biography than anything else, and I don't really feel like that's what's advertised on the tin.
overall, I liked a lot of things about this book (even though I only wrote like one positive thing in this entire review LMFAO) but as I've made abundantly clear, I also thought it had some really huge problems. worth a read if this kind of stuff is your jam and you're open minded but do prepare to be extremely frustrated and roll your eyes more than once maybe <3
I'll start with something positive: there a lot of insightful commentary in this book on the intersection between drug laws/law enforcement and racism/classism which I wasn’t necessarily expecting, but found to be an incredibly valuable part of the reading experience. the author really hit the nail on the head re: a lot of harmful drug use and demonization of drug users being a symptom of much deeper systematic issues and that was definitely a vital thing to touch on for a book like this.
I will say upfront that I do use drugs recreationally and I agree strongly with many of the author's main points. drug laws and the war on drugs ARE a draconian joke and they do cause far more harm than good. scientific literature on drugs DOES tend to be biased and misrepresentative due to the inherent bias many people hold against drugs that have historically been illegal. some drugs ARE unfairly stigmatized more than others. driugs SHOULD be legalized (or at the very least decriminalized) and regulated. however, what I found incredibly frustrating about this book was the lack of genuine acknowledgement of the negative effects of certain drugs, especially in the long term. it felt more than a little short sighted and in my opinion actually acted against the author in his arguments because it made his perspective seem very one-note and kind of fanatical and self-centered. overall, I feel like nuance and balance were really thrown out the window. I find this to be a massive shame because there was a lot of good content here and as such there was a great opportunity to educate readers who have a healthy curiosity about drugs but are perhaps inexperienced with them and less well-versed about how they work. we got a lot of rave reviews about how awesome they can be, which is great - BUT the mark was totally missed in terms of discussing the ugly reality of the other side of the coin. there was a lot of the author completely decrying critical views of drugs with no acknowledgement of the full or partial accuracy of certain claims, and there was also a noticeable degree of uncertainty riddled throughout the author’s assertions - he would deny the accuracy of negative studies or statements about drugs, and then justify his counter-arguments with flimsy words like “probably”, “possibly”, and “maybe”, with no substantiated, evidence-based backup (which is ironically what he was roasting drug-critical scientists for doing - making assertions and assumptions without real evidence, or without considering all of the information available). I'll go into this in a bit more detail later, but yeah, the complete lack of balance in this book was a major turn off for me.
I also want to touch on how, even though the author claims all drugs are equal and none are more objectionable or worthy of judgement than others, the way the chapters about different classes of drug were written betrayed a totally different ideology. for example, the section on psychedelics, which the author admitted to not being overly experienced with, seemed to rag on more about the contemptuous and moralistic nature of psychedelic users than anything else, which was a little overblown. don't get me wrong, there are 100% cringy psychedelic users who think their use of lsd or shrooms or whatever else makes them into some transcended being and/or who believe that these drugs are more “acceptable” than others, and I agree with the author's point about how it seems to be becoming socially acceptable to take psychedelics for spiritual or healing reasons, but not just to have fun (which is a personal bugbear of mine lol because at this time in my life fun and enjoyment are my main motivations in the pursuit of psychedelic experiences - the spiritual stuff has done its dash for me). it is however worth considering that lsd and shrooms in particular are not neurotoxic to any known degree, do not promote any kind of physical dependency, and in fact don’t really have any known long term health effects when used in moderation. I'm not sure the same can be said about many other mainstream drugs. maybe that’s part of the reason why they’re more “acceptable” than say, heroin. and that brings me back around to my point about the author failing to touch on the dark side of the drugs he discussed. heroin IS physically addictive, relatively easy to overdose on, is prone to contamination or cutting with horrifically dangerous replacements like fentanyl, and one of its major routes of administration is dangerous and bears risks all on its own. the author was really very blasé about the negative effects of heroin. he is clearly very fond of the drug (and opioids in general) and this was made glaringly obvious by the way he skipped over or attempted to explain away all the complications and very real risks associated with them, even moreso than he did with other drug classes. he was kind of obsessed with removing responsibility for harm from heroin, laying blame everywhere except on the drug itself. all of his assessments about potential harm seemed to go something like “sure it could be bad but it probably won’t be you mix it with different drugs/have too much/lack awareness or education about the drug and those people are in the minority!” (which i think is a questionable assertion). and don't even get me started on his opioid withdrawal experiment - you should have seen my face reading about how he found that it "wasn't that bad" and that how hard it is is simply exaggerated. like.. sir, your experience is not everyone else's experience, and experimentally putting yourself into a state of withdrawal intentionally and in a controlled environment is VERY different to being addicted to a drug for years and being forced to withdraw from it. it was just a lot. I should clarify here that morally I do not at all think a heroin user is any more reprehensible than an lsd user, but I do think it’s foolhardy to act as if the drugs (and indeed, all drugs) should be viewed as fully equivalent in the public eye.
the author added what was essentially a footnote in the epilogue about how only completely healthy people should use drugs recreationally which seemed like a major cop out. realistically, I'm willing to hedge my bets that the number of 100% physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually stable people in the world is very, very low. on top of that, for some people, regardless of mental, physical, or spiritual state, recreational drug use with positive outcomes isn’t possible for any number of reasons. I've had friends who have had absolutely nightmarish experiences after smoking half a joint, for example. some drugs just don't *go* with certain people. there's SO much nuance to it, so much more than just "only healthy people should do what I do", and that's why a more comprehensive and balanced viewpoint should have been taken in this book. the author talked a lot about his own experiences and how great they were throughout the book - and don't get me wrong, I love reading about people's experiences - but things are just.. so much more complex than that. I thought it was honestly super weird that he oversimplified it that much and it turned this book into more of a biography than anything else, and I don't really feel like that's what's advertised on the tin.
overall, I liked a lot of things about this book (even though I only wrote like one positive thing in this entire review LMFAO) but as I've made abundantly clear, I also thought it had some really huge problems. worth a read if this kind of stuff is your jam and you're open minded but do prepare to be extremely frustrated and roll your eyes more than once maybe <3
jerrica's review against another edition
4.0
Made sure to save this one for when I was DONE with the 40 book challenge at school. ;)
I saw Dr. Hart speak about a year and a half ago and found him to be an engaging speaker who works to connect with his audience more than the average academic. I'm not sure this entirely translates to the book. During his talk, Dr. Hart spoke with a PowerPoint full of hard science data points behind him. I think this was the most effective way that he could have delivered this information, as he tries his best to be accessible.
In the book, I found this accessibility to be somewhat of a deterrent to delivering his information. It made him seem a bit defensive at points. It's a shame because his argument, that drugs in and of themselves are not dangerous to the average healthy adult who uses them, is such an important one. Rather, racist and inconsistently enforced drug laws, preexisting psychiatric issues, and insecurity in other parts of one's life (food, employment, housing, etc) are far more dangerous to the individual. Drugs are an easy scapegoat for politicians and other policy makers because it is easier to ban a drug than to address the underlying aforementioned issues.
I'm glad that Dr. Hart's book exists and that it makes these arguments. There should be more books like it. Addiction makes for an easy storyline, and goodness do I love myself a good addiction memoir. But the reality, as Dr. Hart points out, is that addiction does not make up anywhere close to the majority of the case for the average drug user (about 20 percent of users of any drug will get addicted whereas 80 percent have no issues). However, I do think his book was a bit rambling at points and could have been scientifically tighter given his background.
I saw Dr. Hart speak about a year and a half ago and found him to be an engaging speaker who works to connect with his audience more than the average academic. I'm not sure this entirely translates to the book. During his talk, Dr. Hart spoke with a PowerPoint full of hard science data points behind him. I think this was the most effective way that he could have delivered this information, as he tries his best to be accessible.
In the book, I found this accessibility to be somewhat of a deterrent to delivering his information. It made him seem a bit defensive at points. It's a shame because his argument, that drugs in and of themselves are not dangerous to the average healthy adult who uses them, is such an important one. Rather, racist and inconsistently enforced drug laws, preexisting psychiatric issues, and insecurity in other parts of one's life (food, employment, housing, etc) are far more dangerous to the individual. Drugs are an easy scapegoat for politicians and other policy makers because it is easier to ban a drug than to address the underlying aforementioned issues.
I'm glad that Dr. Hart's book exists and that it makes these arguments. There should be more books like it. Addiction makes for an easy storyline, and goodness do I love myself a good addiction memoir. But the reality, as Dr. Hart points out, is that addiction does not make up anywhere close to the majority of the case for the average drug user (about 20 percent of users of any drug will get addicted whereas 80 percent have no issues). However, I do think his book was a bit rambling at points and could have been scientifically tighter given his background.