Drugs Are Actually Good, Says Columbia Professor

[acklac7]

David Nutt I knew about nice to see another professor sharing I agree criminalizing intoxication isn't helpful but what would really happen if all drugs were legalized?

Well, technically speaking, the top-3 worst drugs known to Man are already legal, but require a prescription:

 

[nznity]

Drugs are neither good nor bad, excess is what fucks everything up.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I will say this, if you figure out who he is on here don’t say anything publicly, just shoot him a PM inquiring if in-fact he is Carl Hart. He should respond back

I believe that this is too much info if you are right. Leave the man be. If he wanted to go out of the BL closet he would do it like late McAfee. But I appreciate much more when people do it offline than online. Let us leave this subject and appreciate the mans work.

 

[acklac7]

I believe that this is too much info if you are right. Leave the man be. If he wanted to go out of the BL closet he would do it like late McAfee. But I appreciate much more when people do it offline than online. Let us leave this subject and appreciate the mans work.

Agreed.

My post(s) have been edited. If you could please edit my quote in your post that would be great

I will say this, the Man is an all-around phenomenal individual. The knowledge he provides this forum (on a daily basis) is absolutely unreal.

I get it, he wants to be rather anonymous on here, I can’t fault him for that. But said anonymity most likely leads to people either not paying full attention to everything he says on here, or worse, writing off what he says as common-man conjecture. The thought of people not paying full-attention to his posts and/or writing off his posts troubles me. He, like many others on this board, provide an invaluable source of information. There’s so much you can learn if you know who he is and make it a point to listen to what he says.

Hopefully I didn’t cause him too many problems

 

[Jabberwocky]

Agreed.

My post(s) have been edited. If you could please edit my quote in your post that would be great

I will say this, the Man is an all-around phenomenal individual. The knowledge he provides this forum (on a daily basis) is absolutely unreal.

I get it, he wants to be rather anonymous on here, I can’t fault him for that. But said anonymity most likely leads to people either not paying full attention to everything he says on here, or worse, writing off what he says as common-man conjecture. The thought of people not paying full-attention to his posts and/or writing off his posts troubles me. He, like many others on this board, provide an invaluable source of information. There’s so much you can learn if you know who he is and make it a point to listen to what he says.

Hopefully I didn’t cause him too many problems

Did as you asked.

 

[acklac7]

Did as you asked.

Thanks

 

[Keif' Richards]

I agree with a lot of the sentiments of people here. When I first started getting high in my mid-teens, I would've told you that "what mother gives you" and "nature" and "herbs" were meaningless in relation to medicine or recreation. Like everything else in the natural world, we had conquered it and made it better through science. That was my opinion.

Now, I'm older and I've had more experience. I find myself often thinking how much I would love to talk to a 100% for-real, natural medicine expert from some tribe in the jungle. I don't know what I would learn, but I would love to hear them speak on the subject of old(er), natural(er) medicines vs. the ones we crank out on the assembly lines in modern times.

I believe that drugs probably have an essential role in the overall psychological evolution of humans. I can't say "one trip changed the course of everything", but what if it fuckind did just that? I'm not the first person to make such a seemingly outlandish suggestion. I just believe that anything that allows us to expand our minds, thought processes and everything else can have practical benefit for mankind.

I believe that Opium is not so bad. Folks in the middle east frequently use it as a panacea for lack of other medicine and it seems that there's really no ill-effects upon Opium users aside from their dependencies. I think taking Morphine from the Opium was probably our first mistake. I understand the great advantages that rapid, IV Opioids can have for patients, but really, who's to say that 99% of other pain problems couldn't be controlled by varying levels of Opium? There would be outlier situations I'm sure, but just think about it, I know I am.

I then look to Cannabis/Marijuana. The argument many make about the need for different strains. -9THC is analogous in a lot of ways to the Opium/Morphine relationship. When Pharma attempted to make some of the early Cannabis pharmaceuticals, it just wasn't the same. Patients were adamant that the refined, pharmaceutical THC just didn't have the full range of effects. Now, they're studying all of the other chemicals in the plant and how they interact. Cannabinoids, Terpenes and so on all contribute to the effects of a given variety of bud.

I really have to wonder if there is some similar phenomenon with say, Opium. Is it possible, that by just using the refined substance, we are missing out on some other form of the "entourage effects".

 

[birdup]

I find myself often thinking how much I would love to talk to a 100% for-real, natural medicine expert from some tribe in the jungle. I don't know what I would learn, but I would love to hear them speak on the subject of old(er), natural(er) medicines vs. the ones we crank out on the assembly lines in modern times.

Great post man.

Those shamanistic experiences are out there, waiting for you. We're in a time and place now - more than ever - where you can go and have traditional medicines all around the world.

Amanita Muscaria is an amazing journey.

If I didn't start a family, I would have ended up in a hut somewhere on the top of a mountain, tripping off my tits.

 

[G_Chem]

I’m going to be trying a new, highly under researched plant tonight, wish me luck! While I’m no “natural is good” snob I am fascinated by natural drugs as they are usually fairly novel in effect. Like cocaine for example is so unique it always blows my mind that no other drug comes remotely close. Cannabinoids, opiates, DMT, Mescaline, so many gems. There’s gotta be more out there. My goal before I die is to find one..

-GC

 

[polarthedog]

You're a great guy @acklac7 And I really mean it. I may disagree with you but i think that you are a force for good in this world. If that means something to you...

What’s a deco’?

 

[Jabberwocky]

What’s a deco’?

Decor.

décor

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of décor by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

 

[Imaginarium]

Personally, I interpret the Vice article's title and some of the book's ideas in a certain way, of which a few of my sentiments are shared - sometimes implicitly - in the above posts. My interpretation and opinion are that drugs are not inherently 'good' or 'bad', but rather have risks, harms and benefits associated with their use. Dr Hart highlights in the book how a myriad of socioeconomic, political and cultural factors impact the outcome of drug-using behaviour; whether a person (specifically an adult) who uses drugs is able to do so 'responsibly' (non-problematically).

There are definitely several interesting points raised in the book, which would make for a fun and constructive discussion.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

This guy's a asshat to say heroin isn't that bad. If your aren't ramming brown sludge into your viens after a while congrats on being a successful heroin user.

Then there's the neurochenical and hormonal changes chronic drug use (addiction causes).

This "Dr" is a poser drug user ignoring statistics.

 

[acklac7]

This guy's a asshat to say heroin isn't that bad. If your aren't ramming brown sludge into your viens after a while congrats on being a successful heroin user.

Then there's the neurochenical and hormonal changes chronic drug use (addiction causes).

This "Dr" is a poser drug user.

LOL, Dr. Hart is a poser now, too?

Let me guess, Charlie Sheen is a "poser" drug user, right? All the Celebrities are poser drug users!

 

[acklac7]

This "Dr" is a poser drug user ignoring statistics.

I can probably dig up threads where you previously interacted with him that will quickly make you walk back that statement.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

I can probably dig up threads where you previously interacted with him that will quickly make you walk back that statement.

He's trying to have his own personal experiment with heroin override statistics involving millions of heroin addicts because such an outlandish conclusion that drug addiction to hard drugs is "good" will sell books and create a media stir.

...a book concluding hard drugs like heroin or meth addiction are bad wouldn't sell that well as there are thousands of such books and scientific papers already published.

what I'd rather see you dig up is scientific studies showing recreational heroin use improving quality of life.

 

[Lysosomalstorage]

I'd also add having a doctorate doesn't make everything you say automatically carry weight or be universally correct. Plenty of doctors out there pushing psuedoscience and dangerous ideas.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

I'd also add having a doctorate doesn't make everything you say automatically carry weight or be universally correct. Plenty of doctors out there pushing psuedoscience and dangerous ideas.

Especially one in the science of psychology. No offense. It just is somewhat subjective and fluid of a "science." It isn't physics.

 

[Imaginarium]

The title of the Vice article is misleading, as Dr Hart doesn't, at any point in the article, say that drugs are 'good'. I won't speak on his behalf, but his book, research and advocacy suggest that drugs aren't inherently 'good' or 'bad'. Rather, he emphasises the need to look beyond the drug itself, and consider that racist drug policy, socioeconomic, political and cultural factors significantly impact outcome of drug-using behaviour. Further, he highlights the need to expand the drug discourse to put more attention on the number of responsible adults who use drugs non-problematically and their positive experiences.

Personally, I don't agree with everything Dr Hart suggests in his book, in particular moving beyond the term 'harm reduction'. However, in my opinion, some of the statements made above are disrespectful, misleading, misinformed and/or incorrect. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, which I respect. Below, I only offer my viewpoint - nothing personal.

For example:

Saying Dr Hart is an

asshat to say heroin isn't that bad

is misinformed and incorrect. Nowhere in the article or his book does he claim that heroin - the drug itself - 'isn't that bad'. He does however talk about his previous misconceptions around heroin and its associated withdrawal. Further, he also also highlights how intense his withdrawal was after taking 30 - 45 mg morphine orally daily for three weeks. To me, I read this as relating to the way (ROA), duration and amount can impact dependency or addiction, but nothing about the drug itself. If I were to interpret anything about heroin being 'bad' from the book, it would relate to adulteration and misrepresentation of the drug.

His research and advocacy suggest that drugs themselves aren't inherently 'good' or 'bad', but rather it's the sociopolitical environment and drug-policy context, which exacerbate many of the negative impacts.

In my opinion, Dr Hart is the opposite of a

poser drug user ignoring statistics.

What defines someone as a 'drug user' (I prefer the term is 'person who uses drugs')? Dr Hart openly admits to be a person who uses drugs, with lived-experience. How would you say he is ignoring statistics? In his book (and research) he cites numerous rigorously done studies, addressing and grappling with the data in a meticulous way.

Stating that

I'd also add having a doctorate doesn't make everything you say automatically carry weight or be universally correct

I'm not sure if you're suggesting this applies to Dr Hart? If yes, what gives weight to many of his claims is the use of methodologically-sound research, published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Further, he's published numerous articles in journals such Nature Neuropsychopharmacology and The Lancet Psychiatry. I'm not saying this makes what he says 'automatically carry weight' or be 'universally correct', but rather that he has years (decades) of experience in presenting evidence-based claims which have been scrutinised and evaluated thoroughly.

Again, saying that

He's trying to have his own personal experiment with heroin override statistics involving millions of heroin addicts because such an outlandish conclusion that drug addiction to hard drugs is "good" will sell books and create a media stir.

is highly likely to be incorrect (you'd have to ask Dr Hart yourself though), because he indicates that his intentions were to prove to himself, I believe as a way to look into the statistics, not override them. Obviously, there are caveats; 3 weeks duration, oral ROA, and the half-life of morphine. However, no where does he claim that 'addiction to hard drugs is 'good'. In fact, he emphasises the harms associated with opioid addiction. Further, he provides evidence of how certain prohibitionist and racially-motivated drug policies impact the severity of harm.

In my opinion, in his book and through his advocacy, Dr Hart does an excellent job at expanding the discourse around drug-use, related-harms and how perspectives on certain drugs are influenced and the subsequent impact on people who use drugs.

**Post has been edited to include details on Dr Hart's use of 30 - 45 mg over three weeks. I also corrected spelling and grammar mistakes.

​

 

[Lysosomalstorage]

So when you search your name there's 100s of puff pieces about your book and your headline grabbing sentences about drugs not being that bad, but under ever article in the comments or on Reddit and other discussion based platforms are many many people thinking you trivialise the idea of heroin addiction and arrive at conclusions on data that just doesn't have any relation to a real addict, what do you think about all those people? Because realistically those are actual addicts.