1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.

Everything We Know About Drugs Is Wrong

By Guttz, May 31, 2013 | | |
  1. Guttz
    Carl Hart, Columbia University Scientist, Confronts Drug War In 'High Price'

    NEW YORK -- Carl Hart wants drug policy to go where science takes it. The rest of us may not be so ready.

    The 46-year-old associate professor at Columbia University is out next month with a new book called High Price: A Neuroscientist's Journey of Self-Discovery That Challenges Everything You Know About Drugs and Society.

    That long title covers the two sides of Hart's claim to special insight on drugs: his early life growing up in the roughest neighborhoods of Miami, and his remarkable transformation into a researcher upending long-received wisdoms about substance use and abuse.

    Everything we've been told about drugs is wrong, Hart says. The vast majority of drug users never become addicted. Cops, politicians and the media have consistently told us scare stories overstating the effects of drugs, misinterpreting the science around them in the process.

    Hart's own research is notable for focusing on drugs administered to humans, not rats, in a lab. It has cut against the prevailing conventional wisdom that, for example, crack-cocaine users don't respond to economic alternatives. He serves on the highest body in his field, the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, which is affiliated with the National Institutes of Health.

    Meeting up with The Huffington Post in a Manhattan coffee shop on a recent Friday afternoon, Hart's style is casual. Clad in a bright T-shirt and toting big headphones, his answers to questions ranging from drug policy to race are blunt. For Hart, writing this book seems to have been an exercise in liberation.

    "I'm the co-author of a textbook that does that [dry approach]. It's the No. 1 selling book at the college level about drugs. It hasn't had any impact," he says. "So I wanted a book that people who are not taking this class would read and find interesting. ... Of course that was frightening, too, putting yourself out there. But I didn't know any other way to do it."

    One of eight kids, Hart watched as his father beat his mother and his family wound up living off welfare in housing projects. He tells of his own history with drugs like marijuana -- both using and selling -- and of the surprise discovery that he was the father of a child, Tobias. His son was 21 when they first met and had fallen into a life slinging on the streets. Hart says that might have too easily have been his fate as well, had the Air Force not offered him a way out.

    All of that is in the book. Hart knows his book may provoke reactions from both his family and the academy when it's released. He already believes that he has lost research grants because of his outspoken advocacy for reform with the Drug Policy Alliance. The book and a recent appearance in the 2012 documentary film "The House I Live In" will only increase the scrutiny of his work.

    But it's time, Hart says, "to set the record straight." Ultimately, he would like the United States to decriminalize all drugs, along the lines of a similar, widely-praised effort in Portugal.

    "If drugs are bad, any respectable society should do something to deal with them. And our society has decided that what we will do is we will get rid of certain drugs at all cost, and the costs are borne by poor people," he says. "Drugs are not bad; that's bullshit."

    Why did you want to write the book?

    You're dealing with this important subject, and you're not dealing with the obvious elephant in the room: Are drugs good, are drugs bad, do these cause all these effects that people say? Because if they do, then you probably should be taking the approach that we take. But the problem is that they don't. When you really look at the data, you see that most people who use drugs don't have a problem with them. Some even become president: Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton -- all of these folks have used these drugs.

    So do you have an answer to that question, are drugs good or are drugs bad?

    The answer to that question is neither. That's like saying are automobiles good or bad. They certainly can be useful if you need to go some distance in a short period of time. But they can also be problematic if you are irresponsible in your operating of them. The same is true of drugs.

    You've used marijuana, you've used cocaine. Sometimes in the debate over drugs, even people on the drug reform side are pretty reluctant to own up to their own past use. I think they perceive it as somehow delegitimizing their arguments. Are you worried that could happen because you are so frank?

    I certainly was worried about that early in my career, very worried about that. Now I'm less worried because I challenge anybody to know more about drugs than me. This is after years of having worked, and now I'm comfortable [with] who I am. But we really need people to get out of the closet, because as long as people are allowed to be in the closet, the caricature of the drug user is this irresponsible troublemaker. And as long as you have that be the face of drug use, the society feels it has to do stuff, and I agree with them.

    What is the norm within the fields of pharmacology and neuroscience -- do people talk about their own drug use?

    The researchers who used to study this in the 1960s and 1970s certainly did.

    And that did delegitimize them, in some people's eyes at least.

    Great point. It deligitimized them -- only if you were Timothy Leary, mainly. He was a horrible scientist, that's number one, but there were good scientists who were doing this stuff and they were not so delegitimized. ... As the generations changed, the new generations became scientists in this area, then they actually believed the bullshit. There are a number of young scientists who are afraid of these drugs, and they've never used, and they don't know anything about these drugs besides what they see on TV, or in their rats.

    Do you have to use drugs to be a good scientist?

    No, absolutely not. You have to be open-minded and you have to be critical, and you have to let go of your predispositions about what you've been told that doesn't have foundations in evidence.

    Has your funding ever been threatened because you don't buy into "the hysteria game"?

    I had two huge grants, multimillion dollar grants. They run out, and I can't get funded anymore. I wrote a really good grant recently -- I'll keep trying. I've been doing this book now, but one of the critiques of my last proposal was "what are you trying to do, show that drugs are good?" And it had nothing to do with that, but I think yeah, I think that people are suspicious of me.

    Is that stymieing your science right now?

    Oh yeah, absolutely. You don't have money, you can't do science. But that's part of the price that I pay.

    What would you like to research, given an unlimited budget?

    I'd like to do a study that compared the cognitive performance in brain imaging of [New York Police Department officers] with some methamphetamine addicts, with some crack addicts, and we'll see that our drug users will outperform the cops on many of the measures.

    Are there police whose voices you respect on this issue -- cops we should listen to?

    No. Why should we? When we talk about drugs, I'm thinking about the assumptions that we made in order to regulate them the way we do. And the assumptions that we made are almost all biological and pharmacological, and so to ask the cop is stupid in my view. Cops are paid to go after criminals, that's it, and we have defined these guys as criminals.

    How influential can shifting attitudes towards marijuana be when it comes to other drugs? I think there's a certain perception among a lot of people that marijuana's just different from all the hard stuff. So when Colorado and Washington legalize marijuana, does that necessarily mean that people are going to maybe look at the science a little more when it comes to other drugs, like cocaine?

    Hell no. And that's a problem, it's a problem I have with the marijuana sort-of-legalizers and those people, because they have done harm as well by trying to separate marijuana from those other drugs, and they look down on those other drugs, which is a mistake. So when people want to say we should decriminalize marijuana, no -- we should decriminalize everything, heroin included.

    Are there any politicians who are doing it right?

    [Former Democratic Virginia Senator] Jim Webb would listen, but I don't think he was that courageous, although people give him a lot of credit for being so. I've talked to him and he's just said point blank: 'Look man, I represent some conservatives in Virginia and I'm not doing that.' I get it, I understand the difficult spot those politicians are in; they need to get voted in. I get it. That's why my book is not aimed for politicians. My book is for the people. Fuck the politicians; I'm done with them.

    Is there any drug that does scare you?

    Marijuana scares me, alcohol scares me -- they all do. Marijuana -- I just don't get it. It's not that good, and then it has these potential negative consequences. There are far better drugs, and I just don't get -- I think that people do it because of the chicness or the forbidden-fruit bullshit. Heroin is a much better drug; methamphetamine is a much better drug. But if you have to go to work the next day and get some sleep it's not, so cocaine would be a better drug. There are so many better drugs.

    So yeah, a lot of them scare me if they are used inappropriately or improperly, but there isn't one drug where I wouldn't tell my kid, 'Don't use this drug.' But the adulterants that people cut drugs with, those I worry about a lot, and my kids are fully aware of what drugs are cut with, rather than the drugs themselves.

    How old are they now, your kids?

    18 and 12. And we've been having conversations --

    So it's a live issue.

    Oh yeah. We've been having these conversations since they were 5. They've seen me give drugs in the lab and those kinds of things, so their drug education is outstanding and I don't worry about them because I know if they do indulge, they know what they're doing.

    One of the things I was astounded to read in the book -- and I guess I shouldn't be -- is that you said in the year you got your PhD, you were the only black, male neuroscience PhD.

    I don't know if it's more a reflection of science or a reflection of society. When we think about my peers, many of them have criminal records because of the war on drugs. So this is happening before science; this is stuff that's happening with our drug policy and the way we think about race in this society. I'm the only tenured black faculty in the sciences at Columbia, in the middle of Harlem. This is about society. It has little to do with science.

    How would science be better with more diversity?

    You just have these different perspectives that are informed that are not from our typical pool of scientists, and so you look at problems differently. You are certainly more courageous in some areas because you see the impact on people you care about. Whereas other folks don't have to see the impact, and so they're just unaware.

    If people come away with one thing from your book, what should it be?

    I would hope they seriously look at the way we are regulating drugs and punishing people, and I hope they come away thinking this is so unfair and this is so un-American. ... They [can] say it's unfair and now they have science, evidence to support it and not just somebody tugging at their heart, but they have somebody tugging at their head as well.

    This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

    Matt Sledge
    05/31/2013 7:35 am EDT


  1. Diverboone
    We need more Carl Harts in the world. His views ring loud as being the truth. But few with his repertoire have the courage to make this stand.
  2. Willyzh
    Um, I read that book in my college Liberal Arts class Drugs and Society. Great book. I wish I had not sold it back to the bookstore for weed.

    The part about most people who use drugs not having problems rang true. He mentioned that most are polydrug users, never getting really used to one substance.

    Like the AA the "meeting makers make it" bullshit... well, the ones who didn't go and never went and cried about their failures may still have gotten sober, you just don't hear of them. Through the lens of AA, the ones who had a problem and kept reporting their failures back to AA just fed statistics to them that are false. The ones at home who decided to cut down their drinking are not coming to AA and reporting their success to a bunch of people who follow a set of rules as if they were written in stone.

    Monkeys can take any drug and get mangled as long as the drugs aren't administered by a lever. Like, they take it once and don't pursue it again. Because it's the experience, not the redundant pursuit of a high that some humans enjoy. Some people are aware of the futility of redosing and impose limitations. That's what rituals around use are meant to deter. You don't just buy an insane amount and push that lever until you're dead, unless you want to be dead. A little of this on a friday. The end.

    Some buy mephedrone and give it to someone else to stash when they chop out their lines. Then that person doesnt answer their phone and is nowhere to be found that weekend. Done and done.

    But those are just ideas, not real advice. You do you.
  3. BitterSweet
    Willyzh, can't agree with you more about the AA issue and the reporting of statistics. People assume it is impossible when they hear about someone like an alcoholic cutting back or stopping their use without going to 12 steps or some other type of therapy. I was reading a book that detail tons of self-reported cases where drug addicts and alcoholics got clean themselves. I have a problem with the disease model, 12 steps, and society's view of drugs and drug use in general, and when you get down to it, all these things are connected. When you think of drug addiction as a disease, it is no wonder people are going to look at drugs as pure bad.

    Look at the 70's era, it was a drug-fueled era for sure yet we don't see every person who tried drugs around this time still addicted. There are always going to be people who get addicted to drugs, but no matter what thing in life we are talking about there are always going to be some people who go one way and some who go another. It's a little bit like junk food - there are those who become obese and addicted to it, but for most of the population, people can indulge in junk food without any serious consequences and enjoy the experience.

    I may be biased since I don't smoke weed but I agree with this doctor about weed sucking, of course I would rather indulge in weed than methamphetamine or cocaine. It is refreshing for a professional to have these open minded opinions but I almost think he goes too far. If I had children, I wouldn't want them to go try cocaine at a party because there is the potential they could get addicted and not be one of the population who can use and not get addicted. And there is also no certainty to what's in the drug if it is off the street. In a general sense, assuming things are pure and taken in the right amount, they should be able to be enjoyed and not demonized. I think that there is definitely cause for concern about anything that comes off the street to a certain degree.

    Even if all street drugs were pure though, they would still get a bad rep. If you told someone you did cocaine last night and that it was pure and not cut with anything dangerous, this isn't going to change the person's mind who you are telling.

    The other day I was thinking about what it would really look like if society legalized drugs to some degree; people, especially those already addicted, are going to get these drugs anyway. The law just makes them work harder at covering it up and results in more law enforcement costs. If a drug addict cared about legal consequences, he or she wouldn't do it in the first place - it's almost like it becomes black and white, there is no real concern for the actual penalty (ie whether you get a one month prison sentence or 10 year sentence), just the person knows if they get caught, it won't be good. I don't even know the actual specifics of the drugs law for the things I do and what would happen if I got caught. Even if I did, that wouldn't deter me.
  4. RoboCodeine7610
    I agree with the decriminalization of illegal drugs. But this guy is a crackpot.

    There are no drugs that should be avoided? What kind of fucked up attitude is that?

    I'll say it straight: Heroin and methamphetamine are very, very addictive. To say that they're a better alternative than marijuana is just plain ridiculous. People should be free to use whatever drug they want, but some drugs are more addictive than others and cause more health problems than others. Casual heroin users are in the minority, and there's no arguing with that.

    And what the fuck would that prove? Intelligence isn't the issue here; nor is cognitive performance. Also, the police doesn't make the law. They're just overpaid brutes that enforce government laws; why put them in the mix?

    I think that Carl Hart needs to go to therapy and work out his past trauma. He had it tough when he was young, and I'm sure the police weren't his best friends. But what is clear here is that rationality and science are the last reasons why he's doing this.

  5. 6Abysmal6Solace6
    I can't be sure, but when he is quoted as saying "...I mean I just don't get it (re: marijuana)...there are way better drugs than marijuana...methamphetamine, heroin" I think he was referring to their subjective effects (e.g. Increased productivity, eliciting analgesia, causing euphoria) not that heroin and methamphetamine are less addictive or less harmful in cases of chronic habituation.

    although unadulterated opiates and opioids are non toxic in all regards according o my knowledge (obviously Vicodin and other combination perpetration opioids containing acetaminophen are highly hepatotoxic in the absense of a cold water extraction of the Tylenol, whereas inhaling combustion by products of burnt plant material possibly containing pesticides and fertilizer is toxic to the lungs among other things)
  6. Virtual-Insanity
    I agree with a lot of this but he's suggesting meth and coke are preferrable to weed? fuck that, that's silly.
  7. 6Abysmal6Solace6
    Different strokes for different folks; at least his message promotes tolerance, something the us seems to lack these days.
  8. rawbeer
    I found the heroin/meth/weed comments a bit weird too but I also see where he's coming from. Weed is a 'dirty' drug in that it effects you in all sorts of ways and is very unpredictable. People respond to it in drastically different ways - one man's euphoria is another's terror. Whereas opiates and amphetamines are very direct, simple drugs with very predictable effects. And the fact that there are so few casual heroin and meth users (which I'm not really sure is true, I don't think we have reliable statistics on this) is certainly related to the fact that to acquire these drugs you basically have to be part of the subcultures that use them. I would have no idea how to get either one of those drugs. I'd know where to start looking but that's about it, and I would NOT feel comfortable looking in those places.

    There are tons of casual users of pharmaceutical opiates and amphetamines, which are no different from heroin and meth when you look at the drugs themselves and not the adulterants they are cut with and the cultures associated with them. I know a lot of casual cocaine users - probably 80% of the coke users I've ever met were casual (though this is not true of crack users...) Hang out in a restaurant's kitchen after closing hours and you'll meet plenty!

    And I agree that marijuana advocates spread as much bullshit around as prohibitionists. "It's not a drug, it's not addictive" being the biggest LIE these people propagate. At the same time I disagree with Hart that marijuana reform won't help general drug reform, and I also disagree that there aren't cops we should listen to. What about LEAP? One anti-prohibition cop speaking out is worth ten dreadlocked drug-loving neuroscientists in swaying the opinion of more conservative people.

    It must be frustrating to be in this guy's situation though, he's had a rough life and he's not making it any easier advocating what he is. I agree that he's probably letting some personal demons color his speech and the result is inflammatory and damaging stuff, as scientifically valid as it may be. Unfortunately politics is an important part of this game and part of politics is knowing when to present what information to whom to get the best results in swaying opinion. Telling the whole truth never has been popular and never will be. Sometimes you have to omit some of the more frightening assertions. This is why I think beginning the decriminalization with marijuana is a good thing, because it's much easier to accept that legalizing cocaine. Even I have a hard time with coke, meth and heroin being just as accessible as pot.

    This guy needs to think about his Timothy Leary comments, and be careful he doesn't follow in that man's steps too much.
  9. RoboCodeine7610
    Yes, he was. But he was also suggesting, at least from my understanding, that they're preferable drugs to take overall. Here's his own quotes:

    "It has these potential negative consequences"? I don't think this guy even knows what he's talking about to be honest. He may have become knowledgeable in the field of neuroscience; but it seems like he's compartmentalized what he knows to make way for what he wishes was true.

    Addiction is involuntary. You get addicted to a drug because of genetic and environmental factors, not because "you don't know what you're doing". The fact that he's okay with his kids doing heroin or meth only tells me he's deeply disturbed psychologically and is using his "science" as a defense mechanism for what he, his family or whoever did in the past concerning drugs.

    I know my shit when it comes to drugs, and I'll still say that if heroin and methamphetamine didn't exist, the world would be a better place. These two are perfect examples of drugs that have no additional therapeutic value but produce far more euphoria.
  10. RoboCodeine7610
    That's not true at all. Heroin is not the same as pharmaceutical opiates (crosses the BBB very quickly) and methamphetamine is not the same as amphetamine (drastically more neurotoxic, longer half-life, and much more euphoric).

    Cocaine is not even worth discussing due to the variable and mostly low purity of the drug. But even when it's relatively pure, it's not as addictive as methamphetamine.

  11. 6Abysmal6Solace6
    Obviousy marijuana does have negative consequences (speaking as a former heavy marijuana smoker) such as damage to the skin, lungs, and other organs due to the inhalation of toxic combustion byproducts. But, yea the way he words it makes it seem as though he has a negative bias towards marijuana rather than an objective perspective that a scientist should exercise.

    BUT, when it all boils down to it marijuana is the same as any other drug (recreationally speaking, drug use is about getting fucked up), the only difference obviously being its chemical composition, but the fact that it elicits analgesic, stimulant, sedative, and euphoric effects should bring to peoples attention that it really is no different than heroin,coke,meth other than the fact that the effects these drugs produce only differ in degrees of effects. So categorizing marijuana as somehow different than other drugs is just silly (non-medically speaking), people use them for the purpose of feeling euphoric. Now when you get down to the toxicological profiles & pharmacological properties the differences enter the picture, but that really doesn't relate to "recreational" use. All drugs have a therapeutic threshold, and most a recreational threshold just above that (depending on the drug users preference in relation to levels of 'intoxication'). So I see what he is saying there. The real issue in drug prohibition is the loss of the 'sacred human right' to self medicate which SHOULD be inherent to all individuals regardless of the drug in question; people shouldn't impose their will on others just because they don't agree with their personal drug preferences.

    Actually though addiction is not involuntary, at least in my former experience (as a benzodiazapine addict). A person who becomes addicted to a drug makes a personal choice to continue using the drug knowing that the more their tolerance increases (or not knowing - the implication that one is not pharmacologically educated in relation to responsible drug use) the greater the degree in negativity their withdrawel after ceasing use (assuming they can't maintain their drug habit due to sociological/economic issues/etc..) will be. Maybe on a conscious level addiction is involuntary, but subconsciously one has to understand that the negative consequences (ussually the loss of friendships/family relationships/overall respect) outweigh the benefits when you become hopelessly addicted. Regulating drugs in a manner simular to alcohol would obviously negate a lot of the negative economic impacts of drug addiction given that social tolerance/acceptance for ones choice to live addicted to drugs in a manner that is affordable would enter the equation and change the 'nature of the game' especially in relation to peoples perspective on whether or not drug addiction is a choice or a 'metaphoric illness' turned medical illness by general conscensus.

    Both heroin and methamphetamine have established therapeutic value. Heroin - anti-tussive (cough suppresant), and analgesic; Methamphetamine - anti-fatigue, add/hd (Desoxyn, prescription methamphetamine is used for this purpose albeit in rare instances), bronchodialator (anti-asthmatic).
  12. Guttz
    I don't know what he did say originally or how the full interview panned out. But If you read what the interview says at the bottom it clearly reads: This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

    I sure as hell hope the reporter didn't take what he said out of context or changed the interview in a dramatic way. But honestly, that meth and heroin argument with marijuana seems almost like an editing mistake or something like that at least.

    I'm quite sure he knows what he's talking about. I'd be very interested in hearing his arguments for heroin and meth being better drugs. I believe as well that he could say that marijuana is a better drug then heroin and meth. It's situational, he says all the drugs scare him.

    Just wish I had the non edited version.
  13. RoboCodeine7610
    I wasn't implying marijuana had no negative consequences. But the ones you're listing are consequences of smoke inhalation, not marijuana, which as you know can be consumed in many different ways or vaporized if inhalation is the preferred route.

    But what I found unprofessional was his vague "these negative consequences" statement when comparing it to methamphetamine and heroin.

    That statement goes against everything we know about addiction and human behavior. We've already pointed very strongly, if not proven that there's no such thing as free will; but rather a combination of genetics, environment and luck. Weather you believe that or not is up to you; but at least when it comes to drugs and addiction it's fact that we have no control.

    I said additional therapeutic value. Over morphine and amphetamine, respectively. I assure you I'm quite familiar with the pharmacological action of these drugs.

  14. Diverboone
    From the way I understood "Marijuana -- I just don't get it. It's not that good, and then it has these potential negative consequences. There are far better drugs" it was most likely a personal opinion. He seems to be of an excentric nature, which would make the speedier drugs more appealing, and cause a disdain for ones such as marijuana. Basically the social ills and cost to society from marijuana use, is not worth it, as there is no gain to it.(for a healthy person, not in need of medical marijuana). On the other hand the speedier drugs can increase production, and in-depth thought, For an excentric person those two can be the Holy Grail.

    This is only my opinion, drawn from the article as a whole. I'm in no way advocating the above statement. So all the pro-marijuana people out there, you can re-sheave your swords. This is purely assumption and in no way is it stated as fact.
  15. Blanca
    I stopped takimg him seriously after he challenged anyone to know more about drugs then he does. He also is quoted as saying drugs are not bad then goes on to say they are not good or bad. A legitimate opiate taker becomes addicted rather quickly. One bad batch for a recreational user and its lights out. Why doesn't he mention the brain damage drugs can cause in people who are not abusers? One hit of lsd and a person can be altered forever
  16. rawbeer
    Why doesn't he mention the brain damage drugs can cause in people who are not abusers? One hit of lsd and a person can be altered forever

    Are these sentences connected? That is are you saying that one hit of LSD can cause brain damage? Because I do not think that is true at all. I'll agree with 'altered forever' but not brain damage, other than injury/death by misadventure there is no evidence of LSD ever doing any mental or physical damage to anyone, ever, that I have ever seen. People have ingested literally thousands of doses and lived to tell the tale eloquently, such as Robert Hunter.
  17. LarsD
    I thought it was a great article... Till the dude said that marijuana scares him and that he fears its negative consequences and continues by calling meth, heroine and coke better drugs... Better highs perhaps but seriously no one in their right minds can deny that those are more damaging to your body than cannabis is... Especially when said cannabis is eaten or vaped.

    Seriously lost me there...
  18. RoboCodeine7610
    Yes; heroin does perk one up.

    He´s just had some bad experiences in the past with family members-friends getting caught up in the drug war and just isn´t thinking rationally. He´s completely biased, and wants to stand out from other scientists.

  19. mr. trips marley
    While this man means well, and has some very valid points, there are still a lot of kinks and divots in his information. For instance, I think it is a great idea to decriminalize all drugs, but perhaps there should be more structure to this idea. Like, you should have to have some kind of legal certification before you are able to distribute, or possibly even USE some of the more addictive drugs that require more knowledge and care to be safe. A good friend of mine once shared this idea with me: "Every drug should be legal, but there should be some kind of class you should have to pass for each individual substance, therefore certifying them as a responsible user of that substance." I wholeheartedly agree with this idea.

    Also, I agree with RoboCodeine on the subject that it was preposterous for this man to declare that there are "much better drugs out there than marijuana". Then of course, the "better" ones he mentioned were meth and heroin. Its not farfetched that there ARE "better" drugs, but the word "better" is simply an opinion word. Marijuana has definitely proven very useful as medicine to the general population, and methamphetamine has proven pretty effective to fuel the Nazis through World War II lol. Not saying meth isn't useful, just saying the basis for use is pretty shaky, therefore it shouldn't be used by the ignorant, and/or faint of heart.
  20. LaFolle
    We need MORE people like Carl Hart speaking out about drugs, their use, by whom and the real effects that demonizing drug users has on society.

    Sadly, well trained scientists and other Phd-types will not risk their careers and funding to go against whatever beliefs or agenda their sponsors are pushing.

    Getting all knotted up in your panties about the details of what he said in this article, whether accurately quoted or not, is missing the bigger issue.

    Dr. Hart is a crusader for fact and truth about drugs and drug users in a society that persecutes both similarly to the blood lust hunt for witches in our Nation's early years.

    He is your friend and ally!
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!