Drug Use for Grown-Ups: Chasing Liberty in the Land of Fear

by Carl L. Hart

"Hart's argument that we need to drastically revise our current view of illegal drugs is both powerful and timely . . . when it comes to the legacy of this country's war on drugs, we should all share his outrage." --The New York Times Book Review

From one of the world's foremost experts on the subject, a powerful argument that the greatest damage from drugs flows from their being illegal, and a hopeful reckoning with the possibility of their use as part of a responsible and happy life

Dr. Carl L. Hart, Ziff Professor at Columbia University and former chair of the Department of Psychology, is one of the world's preeminent experts on the effects of so-called recreational drugs on the human mind and body. Dr. Hart is open about the fact that he uses drugs himself, in a happy balance with the rest of his full and productive life as a colleague, husband, father, and friend. In Drug Use for Grown-Ups, he draws on decades of research and his own personal experience to argue definitively that the criminalization and demonization of drug use--not drugs themselves--have been a tremendous scourge on America, not least in reinforcing this country's enduring structural racism.

Dr. Hart did not always have this view. He came of age in one of Miami's most troubled neighborhoods at a time when many ills were being laid at the door of crack cocaine. His initial work as a researcher was aimed at proving that drug use caused bad outcomes. But one problem kept cropping up: the evidence from his research did not support his hypothesis. From inside the massively well-funded research arm of the American war on drugs, he saw how the facts did not support the ideology. The truth was dismissed and distorted in order to keep fear and outrage stoked, the funds rolling in, and Black and brown bodies behind bars.

Drug Use for Grown-Ups will be controversial, to be sure: the propaganda war, Dr. Hart argues, has been tremendously effective. Imagine if the only subject of any discussion about driving automobiles was fatal car crashes. Drug Use for Grown-Ups offers a radically different vision: when used responsibly, drugs can enrich and enhance our lives. We have a long way to go, but the vital conversation this book will generate is an extraordinarily important step.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Drugs, Psychology, Politics, Health, Sociology

304 pages, Hardcover

First published January 12, 2021

Reviews

[Jason Cihelka · Rating 3 out of 5]

Frustrating yet important book.

I completely agree with Dr. Hart's position on drug destigmatization, decriminalization, the need for safe/anonymous testing, all that's wrong with the war on drugs and the terrible racism it enables.

However, throughout the book, drug studies will be called into question by simply stating "there is no evidence to support this claim", without a deeper scientific explanation into why/how it was proven wrong or the neuropharmacology behind it. At times it feels like every piece of evidence was cherry-picked to support the notion that drugs are good, or some vague reference to how his lab has administered 1000s of doses of (insert drug here) with no ill effects. I feel like this is a dangerous message esp. with heroin being the main drug in question.

Dr. Hart states that clean, legal access to unadulterated heroin would be result in less harm, but I would've liked to hear his analysis of the Oxycontin/Purdue/Pill Mills of the mid-2000's and all the devastation they caused (instead of simply stating heroin=good, all studies to the contrary are unfounded).

Overall, definitely a worthwhile and refreshing read. I hope more people are made aware of the true nature of the war on drugs and how it's catastrophically failing. However, it's a little too pro-drug and would've been more impactful if it had taken a more balanced approach to the issues at hand.

[David Wineberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Carl Hart has never met a recreational drug he did not like. All of them have their very positive aspects for him. They reduce stress, raise awareness, and induce respect, co-operation, empathy and intimacy. And then they wear off. He calls for a withdrawal of government from the drug-banning business. His constitutional rights preclude government interference, he says. His book, Drug Use for Grown-Ups is the distillation of years of research, plus lectures, speeches and feedback from them. It looks like a solid case.

Hart was chairman of the Psychiatry Department at Columbia University in New York. This both resulted from and continued to allow him to run studies on all kinds of drugs for all kinds of reasons. He could determine their effects from numerous angles. He found that they are not killers. He found (as many others have) that only 10-30% of drug users qualify as addicts. In his global travels as a respected academic, this has been supported and confirmed by his peers in countless panels and conferences.

Hart has made this his life’s work. Growing up in a high crime black area of Miami, surrounded by drug problems, he wanted to be part of the solution – meaning the elimination of all casual drug taking. Decades of intense research have led him to the precise opposite position. Throughout the book, he continually confesses his assumptions were wrong. And so are the blanket statements of so-called experts.

In addition to the studies, Hart uses himself as a test bed. He and his wife try them out, note their powers, and move on to others. He now freely admits he has done this all over the world in all kinds of contexts. For him, the drugs are unfailingly beneficial. The Harts use drugs to relieve stress and get more out of life. They can’t imagine stopping. Millions of Americans feel the same way. They are fully functioning adults who, because of government interference, must remain in the closet over their drug use. Their ability to totally hide their drug use is further proof to Hart that crippling addiction isn’t a necessary outcome, and 80% do not become addicted.

The drugs he describes are amphetamines, methamphetamines, cocaine, heroin and marijuana. He describes their chemical structures and their effects on him. He tells of impurities in manufacture, particularly of illegally made drugs. And of the users’ physical conditions that could lead to addiction or to death. It’s not a simple or straightforward relationship, as he says throughout. Far less causation than coincidence.

Readers might think the opioid crisis would be the end of Hart’s theory, what with 40,000 deaths a year from addiction. But Hart is up to the challenge. He shows that opioids do not cause addiction or death in the vast majority of users. Addiction occurs when users have other weaknesses, like a psychiatric condition, depression or other illness that might have them on other meds or simply lowered defenses. That would weaken the body so that opioids have greater effect than intended. Meds cannot simply be combined without unintended consequences. Similarly, co-morbidities like diabetes or other illnesses could lead to addiction and worse. The blanket condemnation of opioids as the cause of addiction, he says, is just wrong. In every case he examines, it turns out the drugs were not the cause of death, even though the media report it that way. Hart says “People are not dying because of opioids; they are dying because of ignorance.” Combine an opioid with alcohol, an anticonvulsive, an antihistamine, a benzodiazepine, or another sedative, and life itself is at risk.

Inevitably, race plays a major role in the book. Hart is black, and blacks are outrageously disproportionate residents of American prisons for their use of drugs. In the world of drug busts, White means victim and Black means addict/criminal. In Baltimore from 2015-17, he says, there were 1514 arrests for marijuana possession. Of those 1450 were black – 96%.

To make his point about both race and drugs, Hart looks at a number of famous racial killings by police, where cops claimed the victims were on drugs, and so they feared for their lives. This is the drug-crazed black syndrome, a bogus accusation made by whites for decades. In the Trayvon Martin case, for example, Hart explains the toxicology report on Martin. It shows he was not high and had not used even marijuana for a day or two before his murder. Nonetheless, the jury bought the drug-crazed argument, and the killer, claiming to be a police surrogate for his neighborhood, and fearing for his life, went free.

Race also hits Hart where he lives. In a triple race discrimination event involving his son’s private school (where Hart pays $50,000 a year for tuition), the administration refused to accept blame and then infuriated him by asking the Harts to rewrite the school’s policies for them. It’s an old trick that is as insulting as it is insincere. To deal with the stress, the Harts took drugs so they could deal sensibly and empathetically with their son. Of course, they did not involve their son in their drug use to help him reduce his own stress in the same situation that affected him first and foremost, a bit of parental hypocrisy that Hart does not even see.



The comparison of drugs to alcohol is a longstanding one. Hart says alcohol’s negative effects far outweigh those of drugs, yet alcohol is legal, and so is drinking yourself to death. During Prohibition, the government itself required the lacing of alcohol with methanol, in an attempt to dissuade drinkers. Instead, up to ten thousand died. Government is not competent to manage casual drug consumption, is Hart’s takeaway.

The government’s broad and complete banning of recreational drugs goes back to heroin before World War I. Heroin’s medical uses are well known, and Hart, who uses it for pleasure, says the effects are wonderful. But government will not budge. Not even its testing is allowed in the USA.

All kinds of doctors and other authorities continually testify that drugs kill, cause uncontrollable rage and other nefarious conditions. They have no scientific evidence behind their claims, but the media back them up, always on the lookout for the drug angle to tie up a story and forget about it. Hart calls them out when he can, but American society has it so ingrained that drugs are bad that the frauds are believed without question. It’s one of those “everyone knows” facts, continually reinforced by those in power.

In 1937 when marijuana was banned, Fiorello LaGuardia commissioned report on it. The report found “Individuals who have been smoking marijuana for a period of years showed no mental or physical deterioration which may be attributed to the drug,“ and that concerns about catastrophic effects were unfounded. But the ban stayed, and remains. And millions have been jailed for it.

The total failure of the “war on drugs”, which Hart says cost taxpayers $1.5 billion in 1981 and now costs $35 billion a year, annoys him. Despite all the expense and prison terms, there is a much larger menu of drug choices and far more Americans using them, successfully, and in secret. Hart is incensed by every aspect of that state of affairs. He wants government to get out of that business.

Instead, the government doubles down. It bans new recreational drugs as soon as it can define and name them. The list grows annually. The menu is far larger today than ever, as synthetic drugs, no longer simply derived from opium, have exploded in the marketplace. Hart presents a list of new bannings just from this decade, in case readers might want to keep up with what is new and hot.

Another reason for drug deaths is impurity. Hart says the illegality of drugs means there is no quality control. Impurities in drugs can kill. Lacing heroin with fentanyl may enhance it, but it kills. If the user knows it is there, s/he can take a smaller dose, but no one ever knows what they’re buying when it’s illegal to begin with. It was the same story with bathtub gin and hooch during Prohibition. Make it illegal, and risk rockets. Doesn’t stop anyone, and lives would be saved if the government stopped its failing, incorrect and pointless pursuit.

Even legal drugs can kill. Hart says just two days of too much acetaminophen can cause liver disease. It’s all very complicated, and users cannot be expected to know all the possible outcomes from combinations of drugs, let alone the side effects.

He emphasizes that the book is really about freedom, and not a drug user’s guide to bigger and better things. But the freedom message is simple and easy to absorb. The meat of the book is the vast knowledge Hart has about what the drugs do and don’t do, alone and mixed with others. That’s what it will be remembered for, and used for.

And although Hart is certainly right – recreational drugs should not be forbidden by law – it is clear not everyone can handle them as rationally and inquiringly as he does. He knows more about them than the drug companies (and labs) that make them. He is therefore the exception that proves the rule.

David Wineberg

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a recovering alcoholic and opioid addicts with 8 years clean, I've never been so conflicted about a book. Unlike some people in recovery, I believe we need to legalize and decriminalize drugs, and we also need to realize how beneficial they can be for treating mental illness. But as someone who has seen a lot of death and suffering due to drugs and alcohol, I know this is a tough, nuanced conversation. This is why I read books by people like Dr. Carl Hart to see what their research shows and how their argument is formed. 

Personally, through the lens of an addict, I wish the second half of this book was the first half of the book instead. It took me a long time to get through some of the chapters in the first half because I felt that it didn't properly layout counter-arguments and credible research to the contrary. But when Dr. Carl Hart discusses the systemic issues, the culture of fear around drugs, and the misinformation, he really nails it. He's 100% correct that drugs are used to perpetuate systemic racism, and the lies about drugs like psychadelics and marijuana are holding back progress when it comes to mental health treatment. 

Hart's main thesis is that healthy, responsible adults should be able to choose to use drugs. While I agree, the primary flaw I find with Dr. Carl Hart's thesis is that I think these conditions are rarer than he believes. In Hart's opinion, if a person isn't struggling with mental health issues, is healthy, and has financial security, they should be able to use drugs. I agree, but that's extremely rare in the United States. Due to massive wealth inequality, unemployment, and high rates of mental illness, few people meet that criteria. But, as someone who believes in discussing different opinions and sharing ideas, I really think a lot of people should read this book to form their own opinions on the subject while also doing additional research.

[Chris · Rating 2 out of 5]

I get where he’s coming from, but he should have led with the Epilogue. The HUGE caveat in the argument is that only adults without psychiatric or other issues should be free to use recreational drugs like heroin. How many people REALLY fall into that category? And what happens when those people get used to using a drug like heroin recreationally and then hit a rough patch in their lives or develop a mental illness? Super slippery slope. Sure, legalize recreational drugs and destigmatize use, but let’s not promote drug use and suggest that there aren’t some serious risks. I get that Dr. Hart may not quite be saying that...but to most people it will come across that way and that doesn’t seem helpful.

[Shane Sullivan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm reluctant to give a groundbreaking, drug-positive book 3 stars (particularly given the enormous risks Dr. Hart took by outing his own drug use) and I'd still recommend it to anyone interested in the topic - right now, it's the best we have in many ways.

The good:
-This is a really important book as far as progressive drug policy reform and re-imagining our relationship to drugs is concerned. The norm is to demonize drugs and the people who use them, and Dr. Hart successfully dispels a number of popular myths around many popular classes of drugs. It's bold, scientifically and experientially grounded, and de-stigmatizing, but also just openly discusses drug pleasure in its many manifestations.
-He's refreshingly honest about not just his own drug experiences, but also his feelings towards individuals he's met through his work. You're not going to find many others calling out Dr. Nora Volkow (the head of NIDA since 2003) and her stranglehold on drug research in the U.S. Other anecdotes of conversations, and the conversational narrative style throughout, give the book color and humanity.
-That style lends itself to accessibility. There's no real hint of professorial/research pretentiousness in Dr. Hart's voice. It's clear he just loves his topic, and is passionate about using his platform to move us into a new era of drug research, culture, and policy.
-For people who use drugs, there's both the feeling of relief (finally, a book that doesn't regard you as less than human for chemical experimentation, but explores the rational reasons behind use) and a sense of empowerment: like anything criminalized, drug use is largely hidden, and is rarely discussed so candidly beyond stories of addiction - most of which only reach mainstream audiences by relying upon stigmatizing tropes.

The bad:
-Dr. Hart states clearly that this is not a book about addiction. That's fine; many have been written (Unbroken Brain by Maia Szalavitz, for example, would probably appeal to the same folks interested in Dr. Hart's work). But I think part of the reason so many folks struggle with this book is that there are no clear next steps beyond 'legalize all drugs' (which we should) and supporting harm reduction strategies. Dr. Hart repeats an estimate that only 20% (he's varied it between 10-30%) of people will develop a problematic relationship to substances in their lifetime. That's still an enormous amount of people, and they deserve more consideration. Dr. Hart offers a social justice analysis that acknowledges that race, class, and socioenvironmental factors are the main determinants of someone's personal relationship to drug use, which is true, but needs to be expounded upon.
-On that point, the title really bothers me. While drug use itself is de-stigmatized, it feels stigmatizing towards people who have a dependence, addiction, or otherwise use problematically to imply that responsible drug use is 'only for grown-ups.' Dr. Hart's a Black man from a poor neighborhood in Miami who has firsthand experience with the harms the Drug War has caused, but he's also a widely renowned Columbia researcher who seems to sometimes forget his own privilege when talking about drug use. His advice that mentally ill people (as one example) shouldn't use drugs is dismissive (many mentally ill people use drugs to cope for valid reasons, and may do so problematically, but that doesn't mean they aren't 'grown-ups') and ignores how complex and multi-faceted drug use is.
-Dr. Hart devotes a chapter to harm reduction that, IMO, largely misses the point. He argues that we need to move past a phrase that intrinsically links harm to drugs. I think most of us working in harm reduction would argue that the phrase was borne from drug users in order to combat state violence and keep each other safe and healthy, and is a direct nod to the harms the Drug War has wrought. There are a few examples of Dr. Hart missing the mark on chaotic use/harm reduction (his experience with heroin withdrawal after short-term daily use being one example) that don't fully acknowledge our current drug climate: a fentanyl/overdose crisis that killed nearly 100,000 Americans in 2020, other street adulterants' impact on health, route of administration (methamphetamine is chemically almost identical to Adderall as he states, but the fuller picture is that most meth users are smoking and/or injecting the drug, both of which produce immediate highs that potentiate re-dosing, and both of which are often done without measuring the dosage), etc. These are topics given consideration, but as much as this is ultimately not a book about addiction, it's also not really a book about harm reduction, and I worry about its misrepresentation to readers unfamiliar with the concept/movement.
-For folks interested in the actual drug research, it's here, but isn't as detailed as you might hope.
-The book is somewhat repetitive in terms of argument and chapter structure. It ultimately feels like it's missing both a satisfactory conclusion and a stronger, more detailed argument to sway open-minded readers.

There's a lot of insight here to glean from. Your views will be challenged (mine were, and I already agreed with the majority of Dr. Hart's argument), and I have a lot of respect for Dr. Hart's work and willingness to risk being a target for harassment and ridicule (which has already happened) to challenge our drug use attitudes and policies. But I hope someone takes up where he left off soon with a more persuasive and comprehensive take on drugs + the social contexts that impact their use.

[Nicole Simovski · Rating 5 out of 5]

A bold and brave book. This is a must read for all adults, from those who are anti-drug to those that have or do use drugs. A mix of personal experience, policy, and science that takes a firm stance that drugs — all of them — should be legal and regulated, with a provocative thesis that the criminalization of drugs goes against our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.

[Russel · Rating 1 out of 5]

I agree with many of his points. I agree with what he has to say about racism. I agree that making these drugs illegal has done much harm and no good. I agree these drugs should be decriminalized. I agree there should be widespread free testing available. I agree these drugs may in some circumstances offer some benefit to some users. However, in my opinion, ignoring (or at least understating) the devastating mental and physical harm drugs like crystal meth and heroin have had on so many people is outrageously irresponsible.

[DH · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was excited to read this book, but I was very disappointed.

I expected this book to provide a balanced view of the impact of drugs in a rational and clear manner, especially since it was written by such an eminent scientist in the field. However, I feel like it downplayed the negative impacts that drug use can have, and some of the arguments are illogical.

In general, I'm a proponent of decriminalizing drugs, and I support legalizing some drugs for recreational use, so disliking this book is not something I take lightly.

Some examples of my issues are provided below:

Hart states, "Fatal overdose [from opioids] is a real risk, but the odds of this occurring have been overstated. It is certainly possible to die after taking too much of a single opioid drug, but such death account for only about a quarter of the thousands of opioid-related deaths. Contaminated opioid drugs and opioids combined with other downers cause many of these deaths."

25% is not an insignificant fraction. According to the CDC, overdoses that included opioids killed more than 50,000 Americans in 2019. The above statement is trivializing the more than 10,000 people who died from a single opioid death.

Hart also states, "Addiction to opioids is far less common than the scare stories suggest...Less than one-third of heroin users and less than one tenth of people prescribed opioids for pain will become addicted."

Again, this statement trivializes the significant minority of people who become addicted to opioids, and the impact this has on their lives, the lives of their loved ones, and the greater impact to society.

Hart then also describes how all drugs have potential uses and dangers. "Heroin...will more readily cause respiratory depression than marijuana will. It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that heroin is more evil than marijuana is. Smoking marijuana is far more likely to cause temporary paranoia...The point is that all drugs can produce both negative and positive effects. So to act as if marijuana is intrinsically or morally superior to heroin - or any other drug, for that matter - highlights the ignorance of the holder of this belief."

This is a false equivalency. Yes, all drugs have potential benefits and dangers. However, it is a logical fallacy to equate temporary paranoia to respiratory depression and death.

Overall, the downplaying of the significant minorities of people who are addicted to and die from certain drugs is misleading, disrespectful, and potentially dangerous.

Hart goes on to argue that the US government should protect drug use rights because it is encompassed by "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These arguments are akin to the arguments used by assault rifle advocates, etc. Like guns, prescription drugs, driving, and alcohol, current illicit drugs can be dangerous. As such, appropriate regulations and limitations are required to minimize personal and societal damage. I don't believe these restrictions should take the form of criminalization. I also do believe that the regulations should be backed up by the best science available. However, I do believe that it is necessary to acknowledge the inherent risk of these substances and craft policy accordingly.

[Morgan Blackledge · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love Dr. Carl Hart.

He’s a science hero.

And he’s a social justice hero.

His other book High Price was a shot to the heart.

(Read my review of it here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...)

High Price is so brave (daring even) and so honest that reading it is like watching someone walk across a tightrope without a net.

I am so deeply inspired by Dr. Hart.

Reading High Price normalized many of my (outsider - non-traditional student/therpaist) experiences in academia and in the mental health field.

It felt like a good supportive friend, or a powerful ally, speaking directly to me and saying (in essence) be who you are.

Hold on to your truth and speak it freely.

There is space for you here.

Your experience matters.

Your perspective matters.

Only Dr. Hart’s experiences, and achievements, and risks, and bravery are exponentially amplified (in comparison to mine) by his concurrent experiences of racism.

I feel absurd and awkward saying all of this.

But…

As a white man, I have been afforded countless breaks, second (third, forth, fifth, keep going) chances, privileges and opportunities that have allowed me to succeed in situations where other less privileged people would have been either excluded or thrown in jail forever.

I don’t say that out of guilt.

I’ve quite simply had some EXTREMELY lucky breaks that had absolutely nothing to do with my merits as an individual, and probably everything to do with the fact that I’m a white man.

I don’t feel guilty.

I feel proud of my accomplishments.

But I have to acknowledge my privilege.

I would have to be in utter denial or totally fucking ignorant to avoid this realization. And, you can call me a lot of shit, but I am neither of those things (at least on this subject).

The fact that Dr. Hart can be as honest as he is, and in so doing, incur the enormous risk that he does, by simply speaking his mind, and being open and outspoken about his opinions and behaviors.

I’m humbled.

I’m inspired.

And I feel challenged to aspire to similar bravery.

With the complete foreknowledge that there is no fucking way I could be so outspoken, and so fucking brave, and so fucking honest, and draw my line, and hold my mud, like Dr. Carl fucking Hart.

He’s a hero to me.

That being said.

I think he’s so wrong, about so many things in this book, that I don’t even know where to begin.

Let’s start with all the shit I think he’s right about.

His primary argument is, that people are not dying of drug abuse, they are dying of ignorance.

The general public is so woefully under educated on the subject of psychopharmacology and elicit drug use, as to render them (and by them I mean almost everyone, including most doctors and medical professionals, and especially politicians, lawmakers and law-enforcement) ignorant to the point of being extremely fucking dangerous.

In short, the world needs an emergency education on drugs, and drug use, of all varieties, including over-the-counter medications, and prescription medications, and legal drugs including alcohol and now weed, and also (obviously) illicit drugs of abuse such as amphetamines, opioids, and benzodiazepines in particular.

I couldn’t agree more.

This type of ignorance is killing people by the truckload. Literally 45 minutes of education could change all that. We need to provide everyone with enough education to be informed consumers of medical and recreational drugs.

Dr. Hart is clearly right about the fact that there are two drug policies, one for white people and one for black and brown people.

No amount of counter argument could convince me that drug related legislation and law-enforcement is not inherently biased against poor people, and people of color.

We need to radically reform drug law.

We need to decriminalize, and even legalize drug use.

The data is in.

Dr. Hart is (in my humble opinion) right about so much other stuff, but on these two issues, there can be no honest doubt.

The other thing Dr. Hart has completely convinced me of is, the assertion that “harm reduction” doesn’t go far enough, and actually needs to be retired as a concept.

We as a society, need something so much more robust than our current harm reduction attempts.

We need a full court press, society wide revision of our drug laws, drug policies, drug education, and drug abuse treatment system.

And we need honest, high quality, peer reviewed, and replicated science to utilize in these efforts.

100% yes to all that.

Here’s where I’m unsure.

Dr. Hart claims that much of the neuroscience that has been coming out of the drug abuse research community is biased, or outright dishonest.

I’m not gonna argue with him about the neuroscience. He’s an insider neuroscientist researcher with the national Institute on drug abuse (NIDA).

So I’m going to have to remain agnostic on many of the claims in this book, regarding misinterpretation, or misrepresentation of neuroscience findings, that overstate the harmful effects of drugs on the brain.

I’ll take his word for it, but all of my own research (literature review not original neuroscience research) paints a very different picture.

Here are some of the issues where I think Dr. Hart is wrong, or only partially right.

One of the most confusing and frustrating issues raised in the book was Dr. Hart’s claims that children are being taken away from their parents due to marijuana use. I am a therapist and am as such, a mandated reporter of child and elder abuse. I also work with addicted populations.

If it were true, that children get taken away from their parents because their parents use drugs, the foster care system would be even more bursting at the seams than it already is.

I have consulted with mental health specialist lawyers on many occasions on this exact issue. According to my research, drug use alone, even serious drug use does not constitute abuse or neglect.

I work in California, and will concede that this may be very different in different states. But it has been my experience that child and protective services will not take children out of the home unless there is overt abuse and neglect.

And it has to be bad.

I worked with one family, where the mom and dad were divorced. The mother was a homeless heroin and crack addicted prostitute. The mother squatted in an abandoned building with her 3 children, ages 8, 10 and 16. The 16-year-old was providing protection for the mom while she turned tricks. The dad was a gainfully employed, very responsible, very good parent. He was trying to get custody of the children. And the department of child protective services would not separate the children from their mother.

During my time working in a methadone clinic in South Central LA. I worked with many pregnant women who were addicted to heroin, and transitioned over to methadone. This is a very common issue. And again, the department of child protective services does not intervene in such cases.

Later in my career, I worked with one woman, who was more than 7 months pregnant, who was drinking a handle of vodka and smoking two packs of cigarettes a day.

And this was not considered reportable.

If drug use was enough to get your kids taken away.

Almost nobody would have their kids.

Dr. Harts claims that children commonly get taken away because of parental marijuana use it’s so utterly contrary to my experience that I have literally no idea what to make of it.

Additionally:

I think Dr. Hart downplays the harmful effects, and the risks associated with recreational drug use.

Dr. Hart bravely “comes out of the closet“ about his recreational heroin and amphetamine use.

And I’m completely blown away.

He really has me thinking, and rethinking many of my assumptions regarding the use value of these drugs.

But from my perspective.

As someone who has worked on the front line of drug addiction treatment.

And as someone who has been exposed, and forever effected, by the tragedy, the death, and the misery elicited by addiction.

Rendering these issues as minority cases, as I feel Dr. Hart does, is ignorant at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

I have this problem with a lot of researchers.

They don’t spend enough time with actual people, actually suffering, and actually dying from drug addiction.

And simply put.

I do.

So no.

You can’t tell me that only a small percentage of users have a problem with heroin.

While statistically it is true, that only about 10% or less of the people who use heroin, cocaine, amphetamine, and alcohol become problem users.

The problem is.

The only real way to find out if you’re one of those 10%. Is the hard way. It is Russian roulette. And we need to be extremely cautious about the way we communicate the relative risks.

It is true that the VAST majority of people that use drugs recreationally, use them responsibly, and without inordinate harm.

And most problem drug users stop using without intervention, by the time they’re around 37.

In other words they outgrow it.

Additionally, most problem drug users have serious extenuating circumstances including stress, trauma, mood disorders and other forms of mental illness, that contribute significantly to their problem drug use.

Yes that’s absolutely true.

Given that, I believe that the number of people that have these type of “mental health” risk factors, is vastly underestimated.

Granted, I work as a therpaist in addiction treatment, and the clients I work with are a biased sample to be sure.

That being said, I have worked with innumerable people, that have suffered tremendously, that were either unaware of how impactful their mental health issues were, or were intentionally under reporting out of shame and fear.

One men’s group I ran consisted of about 15 young men, most of them from blue collar backgrounds, almost exclusively intervenous drug users. Early in the group, one of the men opened up about his history of sexual abuse, after which the rest of the men in group became quiet and pensive. One by one, each of them, without exception, opened up about how they had been either raped as adults or molested as children. For almost all of them, it was the first time they had dared to tell anyone.

Equally as disturbing but probably less surprising. I have run groups of all women, where every woman in the group had been drugged and raped.

And these are quite simply the most dramatic examples.

Actually, I have heard much much MUCH worse.

But.

Simply put.

There are a lot of people out there, who look great on the outside, who seem high functioning, and who are suffering tremendously on the inside.

Many of whom are either in denial, or simply too scared to admit it to anyone else.

And I think this silent “minority” it’s actually a little closer to the majority.

I think some people use drugs to expand their consciousness and explore their mind.

Others used drugs and alcohol to have fun and unwind.

But a lot of people use drugs to numb the pain.

And almost everybody is a little of both.

I think Dr. Carl Hart has an important message.

And I also think that his activist agenda tilts his message to the left, in order to balance the scale.

But I think the real deal is.

We actually need a synthesis of the dialectic that he’s so eloquently identifies.

This is an important book.

This is a must read.

And it’s so fucking wrong in so many ways.

But I love him.

And I love his work.

And so, I highly recommend this book, with the strongest endorsement, coupled with the strongest reservations I can issue.

5/5 thoughtful, cautious stars ⭐️/🤔

[Scott Greenwald · Rating 1 out of 5]

I think Dr. Carl Hart's radical transparency is refreshing, but his drug legalization argument doesn't present anything new to think about. More importantly, I think he is absolutely insane for picking heroin as his drug of choice to decompress at night. There is never a good case to take heroin. Even if, as he claims, 70% of people can avoid addiction, you'll never convince me that heroin should be taken recreationally every night.

I am all for the general destigmatization of ALL drugs, and if you can possibly find some safe, controlled environment to take heroin...then by all means. But, why? If you need heroin to "calm the noise in your brain", I would suggest good old-fashioned klonopin, exercise...therapy...

[Conor · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is incredibly disappointing. I agree with Hart that drugs should be decriminalised, even legalised.

Unfortunately, this book is so steeped in American navel-gazing.

I found that Hart did not consider how vital delivery would be to enrol people to his cause. Hart could do with a significant dose of Hanlon's razor "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity". I'm paraphrasing, "I don't hate white people, but there are some I would like to kill ", is the statement Hart made after describing the racial nature of drug enforcement; in the same paragraph, he stated that his position at the time was identical to the authorities? Where was the editor on this one? Are all these chapters just a combination of diary entries?

He claims to be unbiased while essentially steeping himself in critical race theory, no way to go about it. While his claims around the disproportionate effect that enforcement of drug policies has on different races is accurate. The analysis is not. The incredible disproportionate amount of violence and open dealing on the streets is what got all the attention—distributing these substances in small concentric circles of friends is significantly different than going Scarface. That attention will lead to a disproportionate amount of attention and ultimately lead to some incredibly unjust laws and punishments for non-violent criminals that is absolutely abhorrent. But getting this analysis so wrong, in fact never acknowledging the violence, is just complete cognitive dissonance. Worse, Hart avoids the violence conversation but twice says that he wants to murder and taking drugs makes him less inclined to want to murder?

I'm not from America, but even I know the most significant study on police shootings was conducted only recently. When normalised for violence, African-Americans were no more, in fact, less likely to be shot by American police. Spending so much time in this space while not being accurate, discredits the whole argument. Compared to the rest of the world, American police shoot an alarming number of people in general.

There is so much repetition; the structure is not particularly convincing.
Somehow we also endure the story about how his family dog put down and non-drug-related disputes with school security? Every one of Hart's interactions is first a description of the person and why he doesn't want to interact with them?

Including complaining about an ally judge meeting him on a day that messed up his vibe? Maybe people don't feel comfortable around Hart because he is black and has dreadlocks, but because he has fuck off written all over his face to anyone he considers "not his people", I believe he described every continent and every colour... As "not his people". Not exactly the tone to go for when you are trying to enrol people in such a problematic cause.

There should have been much more time spent on unpacking how to deal with legalisation and decriminalisation. Hart offers no information on how this could be done effectively. Particularly the concept of legalisation.

I hoped this book would matter, but it doesn't.

[Tj Sandstrom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Carl Hart took a risk in writing this book, and in his risk came great reward.

I blew through this book. The writing was intriguing, and the subject, even more so. Drugs are something that have played a huge role in developing society. The role that drugs have played have been villainized. I was not aware of how deeply this ideology of the "evil of drugs" had indoctrinated my own worldview.

Dr. Hart lays out a clear and scientific argument rooted in reality and passion. Here are my 3 main takeaways from his book:

1. People who use drugs are not inherently "addicts."
- This was a concept that I have been struggling with, in terms of my own identity and the way I view(ed) others. I was so intense that I truly believed that anyone who chose to smoke pot, or drank alcohol, or did psychedelics or amphetamines, etc. were doing it because they needed to escape from reality. I believed that these people were using drugs to get away from a deep down trauma, or terror that they have been too afraid to face. This is a very dangerous, and fairly hateful, way to view people. Sure, we all have something that we don't like thinking about in our own lives, but it doesn't mean that we are evil just because we need a break from it every once in a while. Everyone has their escape: some people use TV, some people use puzzles, some people use drugs.

2. We believe that drug use is always rampant, because that's what we are told/taught.
- The media has a power that shapes the way that we view things. Not everyone who uses drugs is living on the street and robbing people for their next hit. As Dr. Hart says, many responsible adults use drugs while maintaining their relationships, being good parents and performing well at their job. Media portrayals of drug use have been heavily influenced by portraying stories that are going to catch our eyes, and humans aren't particularly excited by the normalcy of everyday.

3. My/your choice to use (or to NOT use) is my/your choice, and deserves respect either way (as long as no one is getting hurt)
- Right now, I am personally not at a point in my life where I feel comfortable using drugs. I am a developing, young trans-male who is still going through puberty and overcoming a lot of past trauma, Right now is not a good time for me to chemically alter my brain, and that's OK. Dr. Hart was not writing this book to convert people who do not use drugs into avid drug users. In fact, quite the opposite. Dr. Hart is only advocating for everyone to have the freedom to make their own choice, and argues that society and government should work to make either choice as safe as possible for each individual.

I'd highly recommend this book to anyone looking to change their view on history that we are not often/ever taught about. This book has helped me become more affirming of myself as well as everyone else who joins me in this journey called life.

[Gabriella · Rating 2 out of 5]

I feel like this book would be much more helpful for those who are not already on board with the author's main argument. If you are (like me and my friend who did a buddy read), you are left with a few helpful scientific facts about drug use, and a bunch of questionable content. Main gripes include:

1. the author's fetish for the Declaration of Independence and other "American" ideals (as a Black person, aren't you embarrassed?)
2. the author's obliviousness towards his own elitism as a drug user (his emphasis on "responsible" users was a major dogwhistle), even while criticizing the elitism of the white rich people he does drugs with (and those like them.)
3. the author's political immaturity!!! While he's able to critique many of the harmful ideologies we have about drug use, this level of rigor is completely absent when discussing other problems in our society: his service in the military, the prison industrial complex (CW: his white bestie who invites him to Brazil is a FORMER PRISON WARDEN), and capitalism. If he were more advanced on any of these topics, we could’ve gotten a really helpful investigation of the money trail that fuels our country's War on Drugs. A better author could have bolstered their argument by asking questions like who is paying/lobbying to keep drugs stigmatized? What corporations does that benefit? etc.

In the end, I was really struck by how similar some of Hart's arguments felt to the critiques of marriage equality advocates in Against Equality: Queer Revolution, Not Mere Inclusion. In both cases, an elite group of people are advocating not for the rights of the people who are most impacted by the issue at hand, but for their relatively niche concerns. In fact, Carl Hart often avoids discussing people experiencing drug addiction, by saying "they're a minority of cases." There is certainly a compassionate argument to be made for how decriminalization can support all drug users, including those with the greatest health risks. Sadly, you won't find a substantive argument for that here—instead this author's primary concern seems to be his ability to microdose out in the open with other "responsible" (subtext: rich and white-adjacent) drug users. :/

[Amy Holodak · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dr. Carl Hart is a neuroscientist and tenured professor of Psychology at Columbia University. He is a loving father and husband. He doesn't drink much alcohol. And he is a daily drug user- heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana being his drugs of choice. He thinks all mentally and emotionally stable adults should have the right to indulge in behavior that brings joy and doesn't cause anyone else any harm. In theory, I agree with him. Are US drug policies super racist? Yep. Was the War on Drugs an embarrassment? Indeed. Why did I not know about drug purity testing, to ensure users know exactly what they are ingesting? Why do I categorize psychedelics (and the type of people who use them) differently than I do other types of "hard drugs"? Is "meth mouth" actually a myth?
There was so much to chew on here, and I highly recommend folks go into this book with an open mind. This is a book to be shared and discussed with others!
I guess I'm giving it 3 stars because sometimes the logic was a little shallow. He pushes aside some arguments against the use of certain drugs by saying "this is simply not true," but then doesn't offer a counter claim. He uses the sentence "people aren't dying because of drugs, they're dying because of ignorance" like 50 times. And I wish he'd explained in more details (although I can understand why he didn't) exactly how he procures his drugs- how does he know they're safe? At what age would he be cool with his own sons taking heroin? And how does he know that he really isn't "addicted" since he uses drugs every day?
Shout out to my brother in law for enthusiastically recommending this book, then later being like "yeah, it was just alright." WTF, Tim.

[Salena Copeland · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr. Hart hasn’t convinced me to try heroin, but I enjoyed this book. It is much more about America’s racist drug policy history than I initially expected from the NYT book review, and he writes a lot about policies in other countries and what we could learn from them to treat (not “cure”) addiction. What sticks with me is that we have societal and media narratives about the dangers of certain illegal drugs (PCP or heroin are major examples) which may not match the realities and may be specifically rooted in racist images of people with super-human strength or who are out of control after taking drugs. Dr. Hart has tried A LOT of drugs, and I appreciate his candor. I also appreciated his writing of how societal narratives about drugs play out in the court room (i.e. police claiming people they shot were “out of control” and suspected on PCP, despite toxicology reports showing otherwise).

[Daniel Grey · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a tough one for me because I agree with the main premise (which is that drugs should be legalized and that there is a lot of ignorance surrounding drugs); however, Dr. Hart goes too far in the opposite direction by abstracting away any harm that drugs like meth or heroin do, downplaying the addictive qualities by stating that 70% of people don't face addictive urges. That's still nearly one-third of people that can get addicted to those drugs. He also doesn't bring anything new to the discussion. Nearly every point he discusses has already been presented by others in the conversation around drugs, but better; his discussions are often meandering, his points unclear, and his overall argument repetitive. But even besides all that, my biggest issue is the amount of false equivalences in the book. So many of his examples are easily countered that it calls his whole argument into question, which is disappointing because the argument is an important one. I also think that the point he brings up several times of drug use being protected by the Constitution ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.") because it explicitly states the "pursuit of Happiness" and drugs can make you happy is just simplistic and frankly idiotic.

This was an extraordinarily frustrating read, which was disappointing because I had such high hopes. I sincerely hope that this book doesn't become the voice for pro-legalization, because it's a mess.

[James Weber · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's rare that I find myself feeling so drastically aligned with an author in some respects, but so discordant in others. I get the sense that Dr. Hart is a staunch libertarian. As someone who strongly believes in social justice, I was surprised at my reaction to a lot of the things discussed in the book. Why do I feel so on-board with some things, but so resistant to others? Overall, I think there were some incongruencies in the author's writing, but it definitely made an impact on the reader. It also felt like CH was YELLING at the audience much of the time ... maybe this is what he was going for.

[Nerd]

An EXTREMELY important book, and a brave book. Put it side by side with Chasing the Scream, and I think it’s inarguable that US drug policy is a racist, hypocritical, massively expensive failure that should be thrown in the trash immediately (and records for drug convictions should be expunged). And kudos to Dr. Hart for making it personal. It is personal, for each and every one of us.

[Anna · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really want everyone alive to read this. The title might suggest that this will be a how-to for drug use, but it's a powerfully revisionist book that completely annihilates a lifetime of indoctrination that we're all put through.

There were several moments in the book when I felt acutely embarrassed of my own ignorance, especially being an ex harm reduction professional with a long-standing interest in the subject. Thankfully, Hart talks very openly about his own history of ignorance and participation in the state's demonisation of drugs, and how his mind had been changed by his work in neuroscience and the science of addiction.

I think most people who aren't drug users would find this book to be an effective exercise in empathy with those who do. But most of all, it's necessary to dispel the myths that we're told about drugs and the people who take them.

I really loved Hart's tone too and am putting him on top of my fantasy celebrity dinner party (with all the drugs) list.

[Skip · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dr. Carl L. Hart, a Columbia University professor, headed the Department of Psychology. He is an avowed user of recreational and hard drugs, enjoying many of side effects. He argues that the government is undermining a founding principal of the pursuit of happiness by making drug possession illegal. He believes that decriminalization would reduce deaths as one of the primary causes of death is impurities and dosages, which could be better controlled or tested. Hart claims that the press and academia have a strong bias to publish only negative aspects of drugs, often omitting known therapeutic benefits for ADHD patients or those who suffer from chronic pain. He has traveled and lectured all over the world, and discussed other countries' approaches to treatment, illegality, etc. I found the book interesting although a bit repetitive.

[Rachana · Rating 1 out of 5]

The history, impact of racism, and actual studies contained in the book are good. And I agree that drugs have benefits and should be legal. Philosophically, I'm on the same page. HOWEVER, as written, Drug Use For Adults is misleading and dangerous.

Journalistically, the statistics are often misleading, anecdotal stories are presented as data, and the whole book reeks of one-sided propaganda without evidence.  Given the claims, I was hoping to see studies showing the benefits of drug use. I don't think there were any cited.

The most dangerous part is that the author mentions in the beginning that this book applies ONLY to grown-ups who get enough sleep, pay their bills, exercise regularly, have a healthy diet, etc and *do not have mental illness* (quote is below). But there are no proposed solutions (or even discussion!) on how to address drug use for the imperfect humans that are not as blessed as the author to be free of any of these common ailments. There's no content as to underlying reasons (societal or biological or otherwise) which cause people to turn to drugs as a coping mechanism, which seems hugely relevant to this discussion and is *completely* omitted. But, hey, this book is great for the tiny fraction of "grown ups" as defined by the author.

--------

Quote from prologue, limiting scope of book's applicability:

"A point I need to emphasize here is that this is a book for grown-ups. By that I mean autonomous, responsible, well-functioning, healthy adults. These individuals meet their parental, occupational, and social responsibilities; their drug use is well planned in order to minimize any disruptions of life activities. They get ample sleep, eat nutritiously, and exercise regularly. They don’t put themselves or others in physically dangerous situations as a result of their drug use. These are all grown-up activities.

"Growing up is difficult and it’s not guaranteed. In other words, neither this book nor drug use is for everyone. They are for those who have managed to grow up.

"I recognize that people with mental illness and those experiencing acute emotional crises (e.g., the death of a loved one or a divorce) may also be interested in the ideas expressed within these pages. But because people with specific mental illnesses and those in crisis are at greater risk for experiencing negative drug-related effects, it would be irresponsible of me to encourage use by these groups without detailing each caveat associated with any particular substance and psychiatric disorder. Frankly, that analysis is beyond the scope of this book."

[McKinley Paul · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is mostly a memoir of Hart's experiences, and argues for the implementation of drug testing programs in the USA, decriminalization, education and eventual legalization which I all agree with, although even in legalization I am personally pro Leary like licensure for responsible drug use.

I would say about 1/2 of the book is also about the systematic racism inherent in drug policy, and his own brushes with observing racism. Although there were some interesting tidbits in this - for example police have often used the "PCP-crazed" black man as an excuse to take the pressure off from what might otherwise become politicized racial killings (and similar for the bath-salts cannibal story from some years ago) - this aspect I think is not so novel and is probably better covered by "the new jim crow" by Michelle Alexander if that's what you're looking for.

But my two main issues with the book are that (1) he skips over the most interesting parts of his life, and (2) he throws out a lot of pro-drug things without really giving evidence to back them up or doing a detailed scientific take down of the main stream views in his field.

On the second point, it's almost like he has an attitude of "trust me I've spent my life given these drugs to people thousands of times in my lab so I'm the expert you should trust me." but if no one else in his field really has that view it warrants him explaining in detail, with scientific analysis why everyone else is wrong. Only one time that I can recall does he really go into any study in any depth- it was a brain imaging study I believe on cannabis- and it is obvious that it was a poorly designed study. But anyone involved in science knows that finding one bad study isn't really enough to overturn a majority consensus of the field. If 9/10 environmental scientists say man is causing climate change, you better believe that it will take overwhelming argument and evidence for me to believe the 10th one that climate change is not anthropogenic.

Furthermore, while I do agree with him that the physical dangers of drugs are really overblown by propaganda, Hart acts like there are almost none. He believes at recreational levels drug use does not cause brain damage FULL STOP. He also basically never touches on toxicity to other organs such as the liver, kidneys or cardiovascular system. For example, Hart states cocaine is typically no more dangerous to the cardiovascular system than vigorous excercise - there seems to be no way that can be true and a claim like that requires an argument and cannot just be stated as fact. For many of the drugs he mentions - e.g. cocaine, methamphetamine there is a plethora of research showing the cardiotoxicity of these drugs but he doesn’t even dismiss this he doesn’t even really discuss it.

Furthermore, any search on any recreational drug forum online will turn up tons of people who have seriously damaged their minds from irresponsible drug use - e.x. taking multiple grams of MDMA daily. Sure, these are extreme cases but Hart acts like this kind of thing is impossible. It's like he's been so bittered by his personal experience in this field he is letting it blind his objectivity.

On the first point - the whole reason I wanted to read this book was to hear the very personal aspect of his journey- like how did Hart first come to realize the drug propaganda was bullshit? What was his first experience like trying drugs? How did he decide to take that leap? What was it like, was he afraid? How did his wife react when he told her? How does he discuss drugs with his kids and how is he going to handle their potential drug use as they enter young adulthood? How does he dose his drugs, space out his use, minimize the harm to his own body? None of that is covered and really he typically will only have few paragraph summaries of his own drug experiences, which are light on the actual effects he experiences. Sure, I get it - he used 6APB to bond with his wife and deal with the trauma of losing his dog; he used cocaine, hexen, marijuana and opium with fellow drug enthusiasts abroad and it made him more sociable and enjoy the experiences more -but that is really about the level of depth you get about the experiences and it is unsatisfying.

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

Like Johann Hari's similarly themed and structured 2015 book Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs, Dr. Hart's Drug Use for Grown-Ups is an eye-opening look at drug myths and misconceptions and the utter futility of draconian "war on drugs" policing. Both Hari and Hart include their own evolving views on drug use for ethos sake and come to similar conclusions: that much of the rhetoric in our discourse about drug and addiction is overblown, that most drug users--even those who partake in heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine--are not crazed addicts or criminals but simply normal members of society who enjoy getting high and, most important, that legalization and regulation would allow people to be sure about what they're consuming and educated about things like drug interactions, the two factors that account for most drug-related deaths.

I don't know which book is better. They're both pretty great. Hari's book delves more into the history of the U.S. drug policy and contrasts it with the more successful approaches of countries like Portugal, Spain, and Uruguay. Hart's book, by contrast, spends a lot of time linking the war on drugs with institutional racism and demonstrating how associations with out-of-control young black men explain the U.S.'s failure to develop a rational drug policy. It's increasingly common for writers to view...well, pretty much everything through the lens of racism. Sometimes those connections are specious. In this case, they are absolutely not, and Hart makes and supports his claims well. I think this is an important book I hope people will read with an open mind.

[Hendrik Strauss · Rating 4 out of 5]

Had to let this one sit a while to get a more clear state of mind on it.
This book is Carl Harts manifesto for the legalization of all drugs admitting his personal use to the public. Quite the radical position, but sometimes radicality has its justification.
Responsibility is not necassarily damaged by drug use. He himself is one example of that reality.

The biggest weakpoint of this book is that it is explicitly not about addiction, but focuses on the experience of ~ 90% of drug users which don't face health/behavioral problems due to their use.
I believe, this book would have benefited from adressing the points nagging in nearly every readers head about the inherent addictive quality of some substances. Not to be hypocritical i should mention that sugar works in a similar way and I hear no crys for its criminalization.
The argument is hugely important nonetheless - The war on drugs continues to hurt those gravely, which it swears to protect.
From the tax money of controlled selling and the money saved from criminal enforcement, people could be treated.

The statistics and history of the connection between drug prohibition and racism are painfull to hear and important to keep in mind. For example: 90% of persons arrested due to crack cocaine possesion are minorities, black or latino, while the brunt of users, and sellers, are white. Join that fact with the 18 times higher penalty(Down from 100 times higher) for free base cocaine(crack) in comparison to powder cocaine and you just deepen the realization that scientific reasons are most definetely not what lays the land in this branch of politics and law.
There are many countries surveyed like portugal, brazil, the philipines, thailand and switzerland in order to highlight, which models seem to work and thus are pointing in the right direction.

One of the major points of this book is: Drugs are fun - That is why they get used, initially at least.
Carl Hart doesn't shy away from exploring the effects of illicit substances by himself or in company. Thus the reader gets both pharmacological and empirical phenomenological information on many substances. Hart often refers to the constitutional right "For life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", rightly pointing out that drugs, aka happy chemicals fall as tools into this pursuit as driving a car does. This might feel like a false equivalency at first, yet many people do die driving cars.

One of the shining qualities of Carl Hart is his rigorous methodology and general critical thinking ability which he lays out as tools for readers so they can come to their own conclusions when reading scientific articles about substance effects in mice and men.
It is an appeal for further research and to question ones beliefes. I certainly did. Always thought of myself as liberal in my thinking about this topic, just to recognize that I boxed opioid and crack users in some "addict bin" dehumanizing them in the process of completely disregarding any agency they do in deed have. It is not for me to conclusevely decide on the outlook society should take in this matter and many different viewpoints raise important assertions and questions.
I would recommend this book to everyone. Regardless of your presuppositions. You might not agree with everything written but the more directions light is shone from on a problem, the clearer its contures may become, if you are not willingly blinding yourself with one lamps allure.

[Alex Gruenenfelder · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked up this book because of Michael Shellenberger's warning against it in "San Fransicko", and it was certainly an interesting experience to read the story of a heroin-using professor 'coming out' as an unapologetic drug user. It's as much a memoir as a science book, given that the man who champions evidence-based analysis is also the one whose book largely lacks it and is consumed with personal knowledge of drug usage. Here one finds a tale that disputes our most basic assertions about drugs and the science and laws that oppose them.

Of books that have reached the mainstream on reforming our criminal justice system, this is arguably one of the more extreme, though written by an authoritative figure in his field. It is, above all, a book about freedom and does not care for spending much time with ideas like addiction or homelessness. Even if you are a general supporter of drug law liberalization, such as myself, you may be shocked to find Hart challenge basic concepts like harm reduction and the idea that heroin is worse than marijuana.

This is where I have a major problem with the book. Targeting what he considers "drug exceptionalism," Hart cannot fathom the idea that all drugs are not made equal, or that some aren't as bad. He champions drugs in ways not really based on science but ideology, such as arguing against evidence of harms of prenatal drug exposure. And by repeatedly embracing the idea that drugs are only opposed because of racism, even claiming most police brutality is linked to perceptions of violent users of drugs like cannabis, it can seem like Hart is just taking a reasonable argument too far.

Still, the book is a heterodox wake-up call to a society that rarely asks for hard evidence. It questions what Hart calls the "pseudo-choice between prison and treatment" and the idea of rarified drug abusers, citing the statistic that more than 30 million Americans regularly use an illegal substance. He disputes that addiction is most users' experience, and he does take great care to show all of the research he's done in his decades as an esteemed professor. Rather than focusing on dried-up myths, Hart focuses on the dangers of criminalization and the benefits of bringing the black market into the light, in a way that I cannot dispute is a positive approach.

This is a book by a Black academic who has aligned himself with progressive nations and policies, but it can feel more accurately like a libertarian manifesto: a call to change society, written by a veteran who frequently returns to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. (You'll find this in quotes like "Why is it that guns can be legally purchased, but heroin cannot?") If you're looking for a book filled with evidence for why drugs are really not that bad, I can't say that Hart really provides this. But if you're looking to tear down mainstream hypocrisy and ask important questions that need asking, this may provide you the perfect start to a good argument.

[Ai Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Okay so the good stuff about this book: the science is fascinating, I learned a lot, and I frankly really strongly agree with Hart. I did before I read the book, but his arguments about pleasure are pretty compelling. He's able to tie together both the science and the racist history of drug criminalization (and the criminalization of Black people through drugs.)

The major thing that kept this from being five stars, for me, was the way Hart uses "responsible" in his argument for who should get to use drugs freely. "Responsible" means nothing in this text; he never clarifies exactly who he thinks is "irresponsible," though he suggests that people with psychiatric illness should not use drugs (despite the VERY COOL fact that he drops that heroin is potentially AS effective at treating psychotic symptoms as anti-psychotics, with fewer side effects--which would suggest to me that perhaps people with psychosis would benefit from using heroin.) (Disclaimer I'm not a doctor and I'm not telling folks who experience symptoms of psychosis to use heroin.)

This specter of responsibility hangs over this book, and given the classist, racist implications of "responsibility" that have been wielded against poor people and people of color in this country, I don't think it fits with his argument. It's a bad softening of his argument, and it creates this tension between drug users who he deems are "responsible" and users who don't fall into that category. What differences are there between someone who uses drugs as self-medication for mental illness and Hart, who says in the text of the book that he uses drugs instead of going to therapy (because of the racism of mental healthcare.) I understand why he doesn't use the description "self-medication" (because he's trying to resist a medicalization of his own drug use,) but it definitely sounds like that's what he's doing. How do we address that? How do we validate it? How can drug users "in the closet" show solidarity with drug users who cannot be in the closet, outside of "coming out"? These are all questions that are raised for me by his differentiation, and none are really answered by the book.

I do definitely recommend people read this, especially because the discussion about the legalization of drugs is compelling and something to seriously think about. I just think some of his framing raises more problems than he addresses, and I found it a really big gap in the book.

[Stephen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve never consumed anything more interesting than single-malt Scotch, and yet over the years I’ve been increasingly drawn to the controversy over drug policy in the United States, largely thanks to my conviction that the people are not the belongings of the State. Carl Hart argues against the war on drugs from a different angle, however: as a professor of psychology at Columbia University, he has traveled extensively and conducted studies of the effects of various drugs upon the human body and mind. In his experience, he has concluded that appropriately-dosed drug use by responsible, healthy adults carries no risk for addiction, psychosis, etc. It’s a bold claim, and one I was eager to see argued.

Hart did not begin studying the science of drug use in order to defend a habit he had already embraced. Instead, growing up in a Miami riddled with drug use and crime, he sought to help his neighbors escape addiction by understanding drugs’ effects on the mind. Through his studies, he began to doubt the claims made about certain drugs, and in the spirit of scientific enterprise, he experimented himself. Throughout the book, we learn that Hart has used seemingly ever popular recreational drug over the sun – some regularly, some only once – almost always with positive results. (“Almost” because he purposely addicted himself to opioids in to experience withdrawal.) In each case, Hart considers the history of a given substance’s ban, the medical literature (or lack thereof) supporting bans, and then moves into his own surveys and personal experiences. He dissects sloppy studies that have been the basis of policy for years and shares others offering opposing conclusions, either conducted by himself or by colleagues. Most drug users, he argues, enjoy their substance of choice in the same way that others enjoy a drink: it’s done out of honest desire for pleasure, the moment is enjoyed, and they go to work the next morning. He frequently points out the near-identical chemical consistencies of “bad” drugs and licit prescribed narcotic, and asks: if these have the same constitution and same effects, why are some regarded as appropriate for use by responsible adults, and the others regarded a crime on the level of theft, arson, and murder?

Hart believes that a substantial part of the war on drugs, from the earliest bannings around the turn of the 20th century to the present day, stem from racism. Stimulants and opiods were present in all manner of consumer goods in the 19th century: sodas, chewing gum, over the counter medicines, etc. It was not until large waves of immigration began reshaping American cities, bringing with them new consumptive practices (opium dens, for instance) that promoted race-mixing that the force of law and order began a war against what people could put into their own bodies. Hart doesn’t connect the nascent drug war to the tides of the Progressive period, which sought to ‘clean up’ cities and society by bulldozing slums for parking lots, outlawing residential hotels, creating sanitary institutions, and imposing abstinence of all kinds on society at large: he instead focuses on race to the exclusion of everything else. Hart’s discussion of race is a substantial part of the book, as some recent death-by-cop instances have seen the shootings legally exonerated on the basis of the victim’s drug use at the time, to public outcry and mass arson.

Hart does not dispute that drugs can lead to addiction and be culpable in the premature deaths of many. Those who are in mentally fragile states to begin with – who are depressed, groping for meaning, etc – can easily abuse these substances and destroy themselves. These same people are vulnerable to addiction to substances that the state won’t imprison them for decades for holding, however: alcohol, nicotine, sex, take your pick. Because punitive drug laws force so much of the trade into the shadows, further, those seeking pain relief or a good time are forced to conduct business with questionable vendors selling dodgy products, often mixed with other materials that make it difficult to determine safe doses – if tainted dope can be considered safe to any degree. (Historically, the same was witnessed during the United States’ experiment with Prohibition: when booze was driven from the open market, bathtub gin and the like grew in the black market, and poisonings happened frequently.) Adopting an approach like Portugal or Spain, where personal-use possession is not a crime and where it is easy to test the integrity of product, would do much to diminish drug-related deaths. As we saw in Narconomics, safety and quality both increase when the black market is allowed to operate more in the light – though in that case, thanks to the anonymity of the Tor-accessible dark web than through decriminalization or legalization.

Hart’s case is stronger in its science than its presentation, as I found him increasingly difficult to take seriously. The writing is far less informal than one would expect in a book advocating science-based social policies, with gems like “That grown-ass man did not just say that. WTF?” making me wonder if he was composing a book or a tweet. Race, while a massive aspect of the war on drugs, is a particularly sensitive topic for Hart, and it makes him frequently uncharitable and obnoxious: any time a drug-related death-by-cop happens, Hart accuses the reporting citizens or policemen of subscribing to the “crazed coked up n——” myth, going so far as to put those words in people’s mouths. Hart dismisses fears that criminals under the influence of drugs are more aggressive and pain-resistant than sober crooks as mere racism, without considering all of the testable medical claims inherent in those fears, and this particular instance is repeated numerous times throughout the book. It’s cheap, needlessly belligerent, and unprofessional.

Drug Use for Grown Ups was, despite its faults, a singularly fascinating book. I was mildly scandalized when Michael Pollan revealed he had been experimenting with psychedelics (How to Change Your Mind), but will admit to a voyeuristic interest into what drug use is actually like. Pollan and Hart’s cases make me wonder if the claims pushed by the state about inevitable addiction and mind destruction isn’t as overstated as its other sweeping generalizations, misrepresentations, and outright lies. I’ve witnessed too much of the chaotic effects of drugs on vulnerable populations to dismiss safety concerns out of hand, and in the end remain where I am: an advocate against the drug war on the basis of self-ownership, rather than the argued-for harmlessness of drugs when used responsibly. I’m glad to have learned that they aren’t the equivalent for nukes for the brain, but I don’t think I’ll join him and Pollan on Tim Leary’s bus ride…

Related:
Dreamland: The True Story of America’s Opioid Epidemic , Sam Quinones. Excellent history of the growth of the pill-pushers, both legal and illicit.

The New Jim Crow , Michelle Alexander. An analysis of the drug war’s disproportionate effect on the United States’ black population, particularly the poverty and disenfranchisement promoted by mass incarceration

Rise of the Warrior Cop , Radley Balko. A history of police militarization, largely fueled by the drug war. One of the most eye-opening books I’ve ever read, the one that convinced me to look into Waco & Ruby Ridge.

[Molly]

This was a pretty quick read, and overall convincing--I came away from it even more baffled by the policy of drug prohibition than I was before. Dr. Hart makes a bold claim (basically, that drugs are good, make people happy, and should be legal not only to minimize their harms but also to maximize their benefits) and argues it decently well. It is not the best-written or most rigorously researched drug book I've read, but as a first big book on an important and kind of taboo subject, it certainly does the trick. As a professor of neuropharmacology, longtime drug researcher, and recreational drug user, Hart is well-positioned to write a book like this, incorporating neuroscience research, policy, and personal experience.

The book reads like having a conversation with a friend, which is both a good thing (it's a quick, compelling read, with a passionate and delightfully colloquial tone) and a bit of a downside (it would have benefitted from a more consistent structure, a more logically airtight approach, and maybe a more attentive copy editor).

Some takeaways and thoughts:
- It is super weird that most drugs are discussed through a "harm reduction"/all-users-need-treatment framework, but alcohol, weed, and some psychedelics are exempt. As Hart puts it, "The widespread approach for this 'be compassionate with some' and 'get tough on others' approach"--favored, in different forms, by most mainstream politicians of both parties--"never ceases to amaze me. Even popular journalist Malcolm Gladwell enthusiastically baked this course of action for dealing with the opioid situation. In a recent New Yorker piece, he wrote, 'Manufacturers and distributors belong in prison, and uses belong in drug-treatment programs.' ... I wonder if Gladwell believes anyone who drinks alcohol belongs in treatment. Does he think the occasional marijuana smoker should seek treatment as well?" (37). In other words, Hart pushes back against both the conservative framing of "drugs are bad and should be illegal" and the liberal framing of "drugs are bad but drug users are sick and deserve compassion," offering a third, more evidence-based schema: drugs, like cars and sex and sugar and what have you, can be used in dangerous and destructive ways but also plenty of good ones.
- Drugs work by taking advantage of endogenous chemical receptors in our brains; our brains already use heroin-like/cannabis-like/amphetamine-like etc. chemicals to accomplish normal bodily functions. I realize this is not news, but I thought it was a good point.
- Drug stigma is about the people associated with using a particular drug, not the drug itself. For example, methamphetamine and Adderall are closely chemically related and do more or less the same thing to your brain and body, but meth (associated with poor white people) gets "not even once" ads and scary but convincing news pieces, while Adderall (associated with rich white people) gets FDA approval and fancy advertisements.
- Relatedly, Hart points out that there is stigma attached to doing drugs for fun, even if doing those same drugs for medicinal or spiritual purposes (here he's discussing psilocybin and LSD) is considered totally fine and even hip. I appreciated Hart's point that pursuing pleasure is a totally legitimate goal in its own right. It sort of reminded me of The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities.
- Also relatedly, I noticed that my own reaction to many of Hart's points--even as a legalization enthusiast who likes to pick fights about how drug stigma is unscientific and racist--was often viscerally skeptical. Even when shown facts about how, say, methamphetamine and Adderall are not that different, I notice my brain responding with something along the lines of "well, but if we do methamphetamine we will become addicted instantly and die." The propaganda is strong!

This was also interesting to read after Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty, since Keefe and Hart make so many arguments that directly conflict with each other. I found both books enjoyable and convincing, and I'm afraid I did not come away with this book with a grand theory of how they can both be right, or how the Sacklers can be full of shit and sort of evil even if their general stance on opioids is (as Hart indirectly posits) more or less correct. Still, I'm comfortable with the baseline position that all drugs should be fully legal for adults, but maybe should not be eligible for patents or advertising. (Something along the lines of drugs good, capitalism bad?)

Anyway, while I would probably recommend Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs over this book for a general overview of why drugs should be legal, I appreciate that Hart takes the pro-legalization argument one step further. His points are important and well argued, and our policies would benefit from taking them to heart.

[Cav · Rating 2 out of 5]

"The philosopher John Locke once noted that pursuing happiness is “the foundation of liberty.” This idea is at the core of the Declaration of Independence, the document that gave birth to our nation. The Declaration asserts that each of us is endowed with certain “unalienable Rights,” including “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and that governments are created for the purpose of protecting these rights. The use of drugs in the pursuit of happiness, in my view, is arguably an act that the government is obliged to safeguard.
Why is our government arresting hundreds of thousands of Americans each year for using drugs, for pursuing pleasure, for seeking happiness? The short answer is that it’s a very long story. The long answer is the book you are reading. America’s drug regime is a monstrous, incoherent mess..."

Drug Use for Grown-Ups was a somewhat interesting look into the topic, but not without some pointedly glaring flaws... The best part of the book, IMHO, is the argument forwarded in the above quote.

Author Carl L. Hart is an American psychologist and neuroscientist. He is a professor of psychology at Columbia University. Hart is known for his research in drug abuse and drug addiction. Hart is one of the first tenured African American professors of sciences at Columbia University.

Carl Hart:



Hart is somewhat of a renegade; as he is an tenured professor who is also an admitted recreational heroin user. He also studies drug usage as part of his academic research.
The audiobook version I have was also read by the author; which is always a nice touch.

The book opens with a good intro, getting the writing in the book proper off to a decent start. Hart discusses cannabis and the "gateway drug" hypothesis.
He also briefly talks about Portugal; which recently legalized all drug use for recreational purposes.
Hart advocates for drug safety testing, as a method of harm reduction. Although, it should be noted that he apparently does not like that term...
He lays out a thesis for the book early-on:

"Here’s the bottom line: over my more than twenty-five year career, I have discovered that most drug-use scenarios cause little or no harm and that some responsible drug-use scenarios are actually beneficial for human health and functioning. Even “recreational” drugs can and do improve day-to-day living. Several large research studies have shown that moderate alcohol consumption, for example, is associated with decreased risk of stroke and heart disease, the top killers in the United States each year.9 As you will discover, a number of beneficial effects have been observed with other drugs as well. From my own experience—the combination of my scientific work and my personal drug use, I have learned that recreational drugs can be used safely to enhance many vital human activities..."

The topics of drug use, abuse, and the laws and enforcement of those laws are extremely complicated and contentious hot-button issues. The author tries to make the case here that drug prohibition disproportionately targets black neighborhoods, for no more than nefarious racist motivations. This is a reoccurring and central theme of the book. However, a conflicting argument could be also made that these illicit drugs contribute to the gang violence that plagues predominantly black inner-city neighborhoods, at a disproportionate rate to other neighborhoods, and efforts to eliminate drugs are efforts to eliminate their corresponding crime. That argument is not considered here at all.

Could legalization make this drug-related gang violence obsolete? Possibly. I'd even bet probably. This is an interesting question, and one I hoped he would examine in-depth here. Unfortunately, Hart does not spend too much time here discussing the matter, other than to note that he supports legalization.
I found the writing in the rest of the book lacking as well. More on this below.

For better or worse, the book contains quite a lot of talk on racism. There's the inclusion of the better part of an entire chapter where he talks about some alleged racial discrimination faced by his son at his private school, which seemed to be a strange and superfluous addition to the broader subject of this book. Ironically enough, however, despite how much time Hart spends talking about racism, he sounds like quite a racist himself, at times. Despite lamenting black racial stereotyping many, many times here; he liberally employs negative stereotypes when describing encounters with white people in the book. My jaw just about hit the floor when I read the following quote. Imagine a white person saying this ↓ about black people. A disgusting display of hypocrisy by the author here:
"...Baldwin’s words expressed this relationship with our white brothas and sistas eloquently: “I never really managed to hate white people, though god knows I have often wished to murder more than one or two.”
WTF?!

Indeed, Hart really focuses a lot of his energy in these pages on talk of racism and broader racial issues. It is evident that these are central themes to his identity. He drops this telling quote that speaks to this point near the end of the book: "Heroin allows me to suspend the perpetual preparation for battle that goes on in my head. I am frequently in a state of hypervigilance in an effort to prevent or minimize the damage caused by daily living in my own skin."
- To be quite honest, it sounds like Hart has some deep-seated issues, from the various bits of questionable writing he drops throughout the book. He seems to have a massive chip on his shoulder, and a shitty attitude in general...

This all got a bit much for me when he talked about a few high-profile cases of deaths of black people that began on page 159. That these deaths took place is a matter of public record. That they were absolutely tragic is also not questionable. But facts matter; even more so in contentious, hot-button issues. Unfortunately, Hart's writing here is both a tragic misreading of the facts (in a few cases), and outright falsehoods (in other cases). I'm not sure why this was, other than Hart's objectivity seems to have been clouded by his emotions.
He writes on the shooting of Philando Castile: "But within a matter of seconds, Yanez had fired seven slugs into Castile for no apparent reason."
~Castile was shot as he was reaching for his identification. The officer got nervous when he was told Castile was armed, and warned him to not reach for anything. The officer was not convicted of manslaughter, as the 12-member jury decided that the state had not met its burden for a conviction.
Michael Brown: "was killed by police who used some version of this “cannabis makes black people homicidal” defense to justify using deadly force."
~ Michael Brown was killed after an altercation with a police officer that saw him grab the officer's gun, resulting in a shot being discharged. Brown was fatally shot through the top of his head while charging at the officer, after the officer got out of his cruiser to arrest Brown.
Sandra Bland: "also had her life cut short as a result of an interaction with law enforcement initiated under the pretense of cannabis-use suspicion"
~ Bland's death was the result of suicide. She hung herself in her prison cell after being pulled over for a minor traffic violation and having out-of-state plates.
Hart pulls out all the stops when he gets to Trayvon Martin, who: "was scoped like game, stalked as if in the wild, and fatally shot by the neighborhood vigilante, George Zimmerman... The twenty-eight-year-old Zimmerman, who identifies as white... For no apparent reason, chased the youngster... Minutes later, he had drawn a 9 mm semiautomatic pistol and killed a child in cold blood."
~ I'm not sure you could spin that case in a more dishonest manner... George Zimmerman was the Twin Lakes gated community's off-duty Hispanic Neighborhood Watch captain. There had been many break-ins there recently, and he thought it suspicious that someone he did not recognize was walking behind the townhomes, instead of on the street or the sidewalk. He approached Martin, and an altercation resulted. Martin was killed by "a contact shot" as he was on top of Zimmerman, punching him, and bashing his head into the ground. Zimmerman was acquitted of the charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter; citing self-defense.

Indeed, most of the writing in the rest of the book is viewed through the lens of race, racism, and race-related issues. Too bad, as I was looking forward to a more science-driven approach to the topic... Hart does briefly look into the science and neurobiological mechanisms, but it seems that this took a back seat to his writing on race issues. Massive points deducted for this. I wanted to read a book from a neuroscientist that talked about - well, you know - neuroscience. I didn't want a ~10 hour lecture on "White Man Bad"....

Hart tried to make the case for recreational heroin use here. As mentioned, he is an admitted recreational user of the drug. Having partaken of virtually every drug you can name recreationally myself in the past, I am not opposed to the recreational use of drugs, on principle. However, heroin might not be the best drug to advocate regular usage of. Ironically enough, despite trying to downplay the addictive effects of this opioid many times, Hart mentions that he had some fairly substantial withdrawal symptoms after only ~2 weeks of mild daily usage, and then proceeds to say that he was "not addicted." Although we might get into semantics and hair-splitting here; if you are experiencing withdrawal symptoms, doesn't that indicate some level of physical addiction? It sounds like it would...

So, it looks like Hart's pro-regular recreational heroin usage self case study postulate somewhat fell apart, based on his own experience(s). Although anecdotal, as well - I have known many junkies and coke-heads, and I can say with first-hand experience that many of these people do absultotely not have a proper handle on their drug usage, and advocating for people to partake in destructive vices may be a recipe for disaster for many. I think the ability to dance with a devil like heroin or cocaine on your own terms is something that many people are not able to do...

That said, I am fairly sympathetic to arguments advocating for the legality of recreational drug usage. Although the abuse of these illicit substances can potentially be detrimental to both the individual and society, I agree with Hart's argument from the viewpoint of personal freedom and liberty; principles I am wholeheartedly in favour of. Also, drug abuse is already allowed, technically speaking, in the form of alcohol, tobacco, and prescription overuse...
I think a decent case could be laid out for legalization that would produce the benefits of:
• Quality and potency standards; which would reduce the number of accidental overdoses,
• A reduction in much, or most of the inherent violence associated with the illegal nature of these drugs,
• Treatment for addicts, instead of criminalization.
• Revenue generation from taxation of these substances.

Finally, to wrap things up; Hart seems to have a very high opinion of himself, as well as his intellectual abilities - perhaps undeservedly so. He comes across as borderline brash and arrogant here. This really rubbed me the wrong way. He makes many references in the book about people daring to "step to him," and other such confrontational, and (to be honest) ridiculous language from a tenured professor in an Ivy League institution of higher learning. I think he is trying to sound cool here, but that's not the impression I was left with...

********************

Despite being excited to start Drug Use for Grown-Ups, the book did not at all meet my expectations.
The writing in the book chose to focus on victimology and racism, instead of taking a broader, scientific look into recreational drug use. And while some people might enjoy and/or appreciate this ideological push by the author, I was not among them.
1.5 stars for this one.

[Emily Warfield]

A cool thing about audiobooks is that they make it easier to check out books that were maybe always going to be a little further down on my ‘to read’ list. They also make it easier to abandon them when I’m just not feeling it, and it turns out that I only really appreciated what Dr Hart had to say in 280-character posts. I forced myself to get through chapter five just to see if he would ever come around on the whole “Maybe the fascist who’s been extrajudicially murdering people who use drugs just doesn’t understand the neuroscience” thing, and reader, you’re not going to believe this, but it turns out there is yet another Ivy League PhD out there who is the biggest numpty you’ve ever heard when talking about something that is not squarely within his own personal or academic experience. Not only is the guy a constitution-loving libertarian, he apparently never bothered to learn anything about the history of harm reduction before writing a book that is in large part trying to be about that. Pass!