Why did you let this demented bed head loser professor allow your question to go unanswered about the fact that addicts don’t treat each other nice? Unlike what he wants us all to believe.
Again, I am asking that you invite a sex worker rights activist to the show to present the case for decrim and to balance out grossly inaccurate (mis)representation that Julie Bindel was allowed to fairly uncritically espouse some weeks ago. But please pick someone more sensible and balanced that this guy.
I’m sorry but this guy is talking out of his backside. He’s either saying things that are painfully obvious or drastically inaccurate. The worst episode I’ve seen by a country mile.
@The Power of the Riff etc: And that’s really saying something- the trigger lads have quite a few in the back catalogue worthy of that particular title !
Knew it, just wait and here we go again, yep police shooting people, racism, and i want to do what i want to do and sod other people. Heard this whinging a million times before, not interesting, not fascinating just same old same old
For someone so educated, he is so poor at making a convincing argument. So often Konstantin and Francis would ask him questions and it felt like he either wasn’t understanding them properly or was just choosing to waffle incoherently. Left this video even less convinced of drug legalisation.
I am not very far into it but this guy surprises me with the fact he’s this educated and experience because he certainly doesn’t come off like it because most of his answers so far I’ve been very unscientific. KK talked about how people act on alcohol and cocaine towards other people and this guy talked about how Bad incidents are in the minority, but how many people drink and cause problems? It happens every day in every town and every city and it’s so widespread. Because of the sheer volume of people doing it, it absolutely is a problem if only 5% of the people go down a dark path with it.
Unfortunately what is on show is the academic quality of an American liberal University professor. This was really disappointing as I agree with his basic premise but found myself disagreeing with so much of what he said. He seemed ridiculously idealistic and ideological. He seemed to talk 95% rhetoric and 5% evidence
I read once that the line between having a cigarette and being an addicted smoker, is the point where you start buying cigarettes. If this is true about illegal drugs if you buy them you are addicted.
@@grannyannie2948 Nah. I've taken most drugs, excluding heroin and meth, and bought them every week. When I moved home, I lost contact with my usual dealer, and haven't paid for any drugs since then. Nor yet have I missed them. The drugs were habit-forming. I left work on a Friday, and went to see my dealer on the way home. It was part of a ritual which concluded a week of hard work, and set the stage for the weekend. Honestly - it could have just as easily been a visit to a whore, a visit to the barber, or social club thing. Just something to punctuate the week, and very little to do with the drugs themselves. My experience isn't unusual. You grow older, and grow out of the habit. (You might be right about cigarettes. I never got around to buying them - too embarrassing)
Nay. Weed, acid, mushrooms, mdma : nobody is really addicted. Even coke - please don't deny it before researching. Alcohol. A minority of drinkers are addicted, but a massive problem for those who are. Heroin. Actually pretty rare for anyone to take heroin regularly. I've never met anyone who has taken more than one hit, as far as I know. (My girlfriend works as a govt drugs counsellor, I used to take a stupid quantity of drugs, but nothing for 10 years, so some experience.)
@@tonycatman Thankyou for sharing. I'm not sure that I approve of visiting prostitutes either. Perhaps it's a generational thing. I'm glad you're not addicted. But it does beg the question, if you were not dependent, why did you waste money on drugs? You could have bought a house, or invested your money. I know I'm addicted to cigarettes. And I accept how that has altered my situation financially. Cigarettes are $50 a packet in my country.
Nobody seems to have heard of chasing the dragon. Even if they're legal people will still dedicate their existence to chasing that high and they'll do anything to get their next hit
@@tim3062 the defining characteristic of a hypothesis is that it’s framed and expressed as speculation. He’s making up statistics, the defining characteristic of a statistic is that it’s framed as fact. So no, it’s not called a hypothesis.
Having grown up in a community where half the kids don't graduate high school and a large plurality of our parents were meth heads, pot fiends, alcoholics, and other assorted types of junkies, this idea that most people are using this stuff responsibly and the rest is just silly anecdotes, is absolutely baffling. This guy's living under a rock or something.
He's living on a university campus, so this explains his delusions. The only reason why we reason we see the 60s as the summer of love and hippie freedom time is because professors and media types have survivor bias. All those that died (mainly teenagers) from heroin use and sexual exploitation are forgotton.
I think a distinction to be made here is that addiction happens with or without drugs, and those same self-destructive habits rise up. Gambling is a great example of this, you'll see people completely deteriorate and combust without the use of drugs. My understanding of what he's saying is that the tools being used aren't the problem, what's driving the addiction is the problem (i.e growing up on welfare and thinking that's going to be your future too, hard not to feel hopeless and wanting to escape that through the easiest means available).
None of this would be an issue if people were responsible for their actions,whether high or not. Problem is people want to legalize without that factor.
@@jamesperrie1393 unfortunately if you're high on drugs it often means you can't be convicted of higher crimes (murder often dropped to manslaughter for instance) because of being mentally impaired, so called "mens rea". I for one would alter the law to stop lesser charging for those on drugs so they do actual get sentenced properly
Reinforced through media? Nah, man, meth addicts being bad is reinforced by my neighbor burning his apartment building down and seeing the charred body of a victim of his. I think this hmguy has partaken a little too much for reasoned discussion.
Now you have made me interested in listening. Their last guest who spoke about drugs I really enjoyed. I know/knew far too many f'ups who are either dead, ruined their and their families' lives or mine. All levels of education, incomes - a real mix of people.
@@pantameowmeow.s.1149 you should make up your own mind, it is quite possible I have a negative bias because pf experiences in my life. I think I'm rational... but we all do, don't we?
So you saw one bad outcome of someone who used methamphetamine. Are you suggesting that this outcome represents a large percentage of all those who take it? Because millions of people have, so by your reasoning there would be millions of reports of things just like you mentioned. But of course there aren’t. Just like people drunk on alcohol have done the same types of things. Does that mean that alcohol will generally cause those outcomes? Of course not. We know it doesn’t. It’s for sale at nearly every grocery store in the entire USA. I know that seeing one or two very scary bad outcomes from some particular drug can weigh heavily on our hearts, but we must always make sure we use our minds and ask the question: how often is this the result of using this drug? If it’s rare than we have an answer. If it’s common then we have an answer.
@@danepaulstewart8464 not "one bad outcome", rather a nearly endless parade of negative outcomes that didn't dissuade me from my libertarian view until one was so in my face that I couldn't brush it aside. Alcohol is a bit of a different story. It's use coincides with civilization: we've had over ten thousand years of mutual evolution...and we still haven't overcome the issues it causes. Rather than pointing to it, and saying that is what all should be like, I see it as a cautionary tale: do NOT let a drug, even if it seems benign, into the system as a whole, because it will never balance out.
Yeah this guy isn't convincing. There are a lot of holes in his "logic". Addiction is real, it is a problem, and the idea that enabling drug use through some type of legalization or controlled administration would help heal the very real population of the addicted is absolute nonsense. Going to have to give a hard pass on that one.
Not true, Switzerland had the biggest open drug scene of Europe in the 90s, nearly completely gone thanks to programs such as methadone support or supervised places with clean needles etc.
Gigantic, obvious holes in his logic. I can appreciate the need to de-stigmatize things so that we can have honest conversations and reach the truth, but I’m pro-legalization and still have problems with his position
@@konmoe121 that’s containing a problem not solving it. Our homeless crisis in this country is a product of drug addiction, we can contain it like them or even Netherlands who have Done a good job, but you still have a drug problem, it just doesn’t look as bad since the people are getting their drugs from the govt instead of on the street.
@@weignerleigner3037 I’d love to know how much of that homeless situation was because of alcohol which is legal pretty much everywhere. I’d love to compare and contrast.
As an old junky i wouldnt recommend getting a habit to my worst enemy . There just isnt anyone i hate that much. And when you get into crack heads you need to keep your doors well locked, the misery they have caused through burglaries etc. There is a really shit side and that is a fact regardless as to what he says here.
@@svengali5415 No... that's not what it means. Drug-related crime is stuff like burglary, shoplifting, violence and murder. It's the stuff done by addicts to get their fix and the stuff done by dealers during territorial disputes.
My parents were strolling down the street in a middle-class neighborhood. My father was beaten to death by a much younger man who was “only” on PCP. The man was not convicted of murder because “he was on a mind altering drug.” My mother had a nervous breakdown. I was 19 and had to leave college to take care of my two baby sisters. That was 30 years ago. Please know mr. hart that, this tragedy precipitated by the usage of PCP, not only broke my heart but caused unbearable hardship for the rest of my life. You, I’m sure will reduce this to a mere statistic that rarely happens with the usage PCP to justify all of your purported research. What is more disturbing is to watch you pontificate with no scientific data, statistics or references. You sir are a danger to society.
@@aribatt2237 He made point that the drug shouldn't be treated negatively, that people shouldn't be shot to death for being on it. But that doesn't mean that he is arguing that a murder should be excused for being on that drug either. Could your father have being beaten to death by someone not on drugs? It's entirely possible, just saying that it was because of the drug is too simplistic a response. Well anyway, that person should have been judged by their actions, not their blood test.
This was a really interesting interview perhaps for all the wrong reasons for me 😅 I believe in legalisation and regulation of both drugs and prostitution but wow did I disagree with this guy on a lot of levels! He seemed to have a very unrealistic rose tinted view of the effects of hard drugs based on his own experiences, biases and experiments done on healthy volunteers in controlled environments. We cannot be naive to the potential harms and pitfalls of drug addiction just like alcohol hence why it would need tight regulation. Anyone who has spent time or worked with addicts will be aware of the potential problems. He also has the typical blame capitalism for everything attitude but he can't see (or won't see)that the obvious capitalist solution to the drug war and cartel violence is legalisation, taxation and regulation. Social conservatism is the driving force for prohibition not capitalism. "They haven't found the way to make money off drugs yet" is perhaps one of the stupidest things I've heard from any of your guests. Similarly thinking the drug cartels will continue to make billions without the illegal drug trade. Suggesting the drug barons who murder many in brutal ways are morally equivalents of politicians, shit this man needs to spend sometime outside of academia and in the real world!
Besides, regulation of prostitution doesn’t work. It creates a two tier system with difficult standards to meet by all and that still punishes people. Full decriminalisation in relation to prostitution works far better.
@@joanna9215 I agree with legalisation. By regulation in prostitution I would mean ensuring safety of the prostitutes, ensure no exploitative pimps and safeguarding against human trafficking and modern slavery. Basically create a union! 😄
I listened but this guy tried to cancel out a narrative with a narrative. Drugs ripped through my family - sure people took it and are ultimately responsible, but crack helped with the weight loss, loss of teeth, crack addicted baby born, etc. Sure drugs were no issue at all.
Many people have drug addicts in their family, and many people blame the drugs instead of the underlying issues such as abuse, neglect, racism and poverty.
Sounds good, let's play out this theory and see how things go. I am sure people who are at the bottom of society will be better off after adding drug addiction to their laundry list of problems. Non-sense.
An extremely dangerous person’s ideas are dr. Harts, who seems like he has partaken too much from the illegal substances he has been giving his test subjects.
Addiction is the exception rather than the rule in people who aren't burdened with a "laundry list" of problems in the first place (but at least you acknowledge the importance of that List).
90% of people don’t have a problem with alcohol?!? Man where are you getting your facts? That’s a gross understatement of the problem with alcohol! If I had to guess without looking into the data, I’d say 90% of people DO have a problem with alcohol.
Scenario 1: A person acquires and uses a particular dose of a particular banned drug under prohibition. Scenario 2: That same person acquires and uses the same dose of the same drug under legal regulation. Scenario 2, it seems to me, is never going to cause more harm than Scenario 1, and will very often cause significantly less harm in multiple ways, and not just to the user. This disparity will often be greater with use of "harder" drugs. Unknown strength, adulteration, having to deal with criminals to acquire the drug, the criminalisation of otherwise law-abiding citizens, and having to pay way over the drug's "real" value (possibly leading to acquisitive crime) are just a few examples. Many drug-related deaths stem from ignorance of basic facts (e.g. dancing too much after taking MDMA); under legal regulation, users could be educated on a particular drug before being able to obtain it. So, the question is whether or not prohibition has sufficient benefits (e.g. deterrence) to compensate for all that extra harm. I am not at all convinced that it does. However, theory and discussion can only take us so far with an issue as complex as this. The only way to really know whether a policy works is to try it. If prohibition worked even somewhat well, there may be a case for sticking with the devil you know rather than risking a different approach. But, in reality, prohibition has failed so miserably and reliably that it seems worth having a go at legal regulation. Certainly, where cannabis has been legally regulated, the dire predictions made by prohibitionists have largely not materialised.
I feel like once something is made legal for recreational use there wont be any going back. Prohibition may have worked if people where not already in love with drinking. The heart of this issue is that people want to feel good. The right way to feel good is to do something good, that naturally makes us feel good. Rather then an artificial feel good, that doesn't come with work attached to it. I think drugs may help with people who have illnesses. But if people aren't sick, then no drugs should be the goal. We should keep our mind the way nature intended, as evolution has worked it out to be. I don't think there are any countries that have tried legalizing heaver drugs, so we don't know how bad that could really be. People have started to warm up to weed, yet it at the same time is changing, and becoming stronger. Increasing the dosage of a drug can make a big difference on the body. Bottom line is that its real dangerous to use any kind of medication with a butt load of research on it. And its just not what people seemed to be concerned with.
From what I've seen from this interview so far, it seems like he is too caught up on just laboratory research. Results in real life vs in a laboratory can be vastly different. Cocaine, alcohol, and other drugs can absolutely make people do aggressive and dangerous things. In both my personal experience, and what I have seen others do. He's right that they absolutely make people feel better, and for some, even most people, it will make them treat others better. But there is a large portion of users where that is not the case. I feel as though he is not being honest about the negatives of taking these drugs, and making them more accessible. And this is coming from someone who is very much in favor of decriminalizing drugs, and making them less stigmatized and more accessible.
Ive been taking various recreational drugs for years with no significant consequences and certainly no violence towards anyone else. Should i be criminalised for taking them because some people cant do the same?
He's literally doing the opposite. He's done research with actual addicts. Aggressive people are aggressive intoxicated or sober. Your being doesn't change whence under the influence.
@@11East Work on your reading comprehension. I stated in my comment that I support decriminalization and destigmatization, and I even use drugs recreationally too. My point was that he was being dishonest when he said that drugs make people treat others better. That can happen, but I know first hand, and through observation of others that being high can make you do very dangerous and antisocial things.
@@MeanBeanComedy I am not an aggressive person, and I have taken drugs that have made me burst into rage at the drop of a hat at certain times. Your being can indeed change depending on the dosage and drug. And no, one of the main things you learn from research is that results in the real world and results in a lab can be VERY different. Studying an addict under a lab settings vs observing in the real world will have different results. I know FIRST HAND as I actually have experience with drugs.
@@christianr4769 Must've been fighting back some rage somewhere that let it out. Drugs can't change your person. They can only reveal things about you you didn't know or were in denial of.
Why didn't he bring up the legal prescription of heroin in Denmark and Switzerland... probably bcoz it would destroy his point that ppl wouldn't do IV if they had pharmagrade.
@Hellig Usvart i didnt say there was a problem problem... but ppl in them shoot the heroin. He claimed that ppl only shoot drugs bcoz the quality of drugs is poor. And thats kind of strange thing to claim.
People use heroin intravenously for a bigger, stronger more intense high. The same reason why people who smoke cannabis use a bong, or people wrap powder in a fag paper and swallow it instead of snorting. Legalisation will not change the habits of users looking for a bigger high. Straw man argument that relies on people being responsible who have shown themselves to lack responsibility 🤷🏻♂️
@@kevingodfrey7771 there is some truth in it, and that is that many ppl start to shoot up bcoz its too expensive to snort or smoke, I was one of those ppl. But once u have mainlined its very hard to go back... But then again.. I have never smoked pure heroin base so who knows? Smoking crack gives u a very intense and fast high so maybe it would work.. I guess it depends if u can get enough into your body in one inhalation.
@Hellig Usvart I know, but dr Carl hart claim is that people wouldn’t use it via Iv if given the option of pharmaceutical grade via a option other than IV, I argue that many still would do it via IV regardless for other reasons.
Imagine getting in the situation of having to choose between meth and your children’s dinner. I watched this guy on Joe Rogan, and his message is naive. This guy is so detached from real life, with his good quality columbian cocaine supply. The goal isn’t to make life better with a drug! What happens during times when supply chains break? Maybe he had a nice supply of heroin over covid-19 lockdowns but I can’t imagine his kids would have had a nice time if he was on the mother of all comedowns. Not a well picked, well thought out guest. You guys are meant to be intelligent gatekeepers. You have a platform where you point attention, attention is a moral act!
We actually rarely hear that drugs are bad. Much tv/movies portray hard partying as harmless fun; many journalists claim weed is harmless and that it's legalisation is as important as say medicare for all; alcohol is acceptable (while tobacco isn't). Is see from the comments most people are wise to this guy.
Dr Hart makes some good points, and some TERRIBLE ones. “Feeling good” is a massively complex thing. I’ve worked with addicts for many years, and studied (and used) just about every substance. Regulating a pill form of heroin would lead to no where but more problems. I’m definitely not saying there isn’t a place for safe drug use and regulation. (As a psychotherapist with a focus in trauma, I’ve been closely watching the research on MDMA, psilocybin, etc.) I’m not convinced of his acumen and will be curious to look into his credentials and publications. Columbia?!? I hate to say that now I have to wonder if he was a diversity hire.
I totally agree about the "feeling good" argument. That is a subjective thing, not a universal one. At this point I became even more skeptical of his position on these issues.
Tries to convince us he's a scientist but ultimately his argument is based on feels over reals and his foray into racism rhetoric says all you should need to know about the angle he's coming from
@@DJRockford83 Right??! I’m guessing he’d suggest that if there were enough jobs programs and we regulated the quality of crack cocaine, the inner city epidemic of the 80s would’ve never happened. 🤦🏻♂️
The problem is though that drugs severely impair your judgment. A user may think that he is being normal and nice, but in reality he's ranting and raving and generally freaking people out. Heroin and cocaïne make you think only about yourself. Cannabis can make you paranoid, even when you are not taking it. MDMA might make you friendly and nice, but that's not a good thing bc unless you are 100% safe (at home for example), someone could seriously take advantage of you.
Just because something is made legal doesn’t mean it would wipe out the illegal drugs on the street. The street drug would be at a much higher dose and would be much cheaper due to less regulation. So for me his argument doesn’t hold water. Plus, as someone who battles a chronic illness for 32 years where I’ve been in hospital close to 200 times needing opioids, it gets harder each time I go through withdrawals after discharge. - I wouldn’t recommend it for anyone
I like to think I have an open mind with a natural scepsis always present. I'm also a huge fan of triggernometry. But the way some of the statements by this figure went unchallenged, made my blood boil. Yes, perhaps giving a one-time, mild dosage of cocaine to a stable, healthy individual in the lab, can make them happier and more pleasant. But in the real world, continued use of cocaine makes someone paranoid, poor and even psychotic. What happens in the real world should inform decision making, not artifical lab experiments by a reasearcher with an agenda. More fundamentally: is life about YOU feeling as pleasant as possible all of the time? Or is it about dealing with the hardship when it comes along? Or about the people around you that care about you or depend on you? Of all the episodes, this is the first time I feel someone should have been censored, a very strange and unique feeling for me. Finally: it it just me or does this mean radiate hypocrisy? In the beginning he dismissed left/right, progressive/conservative etc to appear neutral, but he is actually an activist on the very extreme end of one side regarding drug policy. Also: he pretends to be a rare peddler of facts, an antidote to misinformation, but is the classical example of a researcher using artificial lab experiments and pharmacological nuance to make grand claims on what role these substances should play in society. But if you open your eyes to what's going on, drugs are a source of great tragedy too and not only for their users, but the people around them. Sometimes they can help and heal, but often they are an escape and prevent the kind of healing people need to live a long, happy and stable life.
Many sceptical aspects to his theories. I have had a life long relationship with drugs and am now totally sober however. Some drugs are actually physically addictive such as heroin, the more you take it the more you need to stave off the very painful physical withdrawal. Weed also in my opinion was one of the worst drugs I ever got involved with as I witnessed many friends suffer psychosis induced from pot smoking. Then there are come downs. What goes up must come down and the best way is to use downers however at some point you are always going to suffer some kind of withdrawal from drugs no matter the dosage. Then there is addiction. Addictive personalities are not created because of the substance itself but run much deeper. People who are totally sober can have addictive personalities yet their addiction is played out in other non substance use forms, sex, gambling, eating etc. I think there is more to it than what this guy is saying.
Perhaps more people in the comments section refuting Dr. Hart would hold a different view if the many people in their circle who routinely use and enjoy what are believed to be the most harmful, problematic, and addictive drugs *(without major harm, problems, or addiction)* came out of the closet?
He seems like many modern scientists. He is blinded by his ideals. People take coke to feel better, people who feel better treat others better, therefore people who do coke treat others better is such bad bad logic.
Of course that's not exactly how it plays out in the real world, but even if it were true (which it's not) that *100% of the time* people treated others *worse*... Is that a legitimate reason to prohibit access to safe versions of the substances people seek, with the attendant violence, deaths and imprisonment created by the same laws?
Interesting conversation. I don't know if I agree with everything, but obviously because it is a vast topic a lot of contextual tangents and exceptions to the rule could not be explored fully. It has certainly given me new stream of thoughts. I would definitely check out Dr Carl Hart's work in time, and try to understand his evidence and detailed view point. At the very least this conversation opens room for a possibility of different perspective on drugs and makes me curious enough to investigate further. Thank you guys as always.
I think that the point there is that a person who is using that stuff already has issues and that they are nicer and more social than the base line for that particular person. I am not sure if that is true with cocaine, but most light users of mary jane and alcohol are like that. It is just the onces where the addiction takes over thier life that his words become laughable.
I didn’t watch the episode because I’ve seen this guy on other podcasts, so I pretty much know what he’s about. Sometimes you have to put your own experiences ahead of the experts… Every person I knew from my estate who tried crack or heroin became addicts, most of them are now dead or in prison. There’s my first hand experience, sorry but I can’t take his “findings” seriously.
Can we please get a definition of Drugs? I hear alcohol in the same conversation as heroin. Is caffeine part of the discussion? Shouldn't the discussion be about ABUSE of the chemicals?
Your liberty to put whatever you like in your body as an adult stops at the point where I am potentially endangered in the workplace by your level of sobriety, and if my children are spending any time with you ‘in loco parentis’ as a supposedly sober, aware and responsible adult.
@@kungfreddie I don’t think I was actually suggesting that someone who is drinking AFTER a work shift is actually endangering me while we are both at work. But, Are you making the assumption that everyone will only ever take their drug of choice outside of work hours and definitely be fully clean and sober by the time the next shift rolls around?
@@virginiacharlotte7007 It depends on what drug, how much, the individual, and the set & setting, but I believe that is what Dr. Hart generally means when he speaks of responsible grown-ups, yes.
This was great, I'd love to see Carl and Proff Nutt and Johan Hari all talking to Peter Hitchens who has the most conservative view of drugs possible. I would like to see if they can change the mind of Peter Hitchens, he likes to thi k that he's open to having mind changed, if we can change his mind then maybe there is hope to change the minds of others?
He said something like using drugs “can help people become closer.” This is such a dangerous thing to suggest, even if it is sometimes true. If you need to be high to do interpersonal work, you are either a.) an extreme exception to the rule, or b.) living out a delusion. A person’s mind and the nature of their adult relationships develop through an enormous matrix of experiences and genetic and epigenetic potentialities. The idea that drugs can be broadly made safe or effective in any kind of treatment is a child’s dream. Marijuana can be helpful for some, and cause a stable person with a psychotically-organized psyche to tip into psychosis. This guy is making broad statements where they need not be made. Books titled “XYZ For Dummies” are never very deeply thought-out books, despite the letters and credentials behind the author’s name.
Everyone I knew who tried drugs early were from quite poor or uneducated families. No one is proposing children should do drugs. Everyone i know with an alcohol problem is self medicating, whether knowingly or not. The alcohol itself does not cause this from what I’ve seen.
In my opinion its largely a spiritual problem. I was an addict myself, i got through it & got educated as an addiction specialist. Ive seen the systems short comings myself. So much so that I couldn't continue doing it. I watched it fail so many but it can be fixed. In my experience treatment centers that are devoted to a spiritual method have a higher success rate than those using other methods. Especially when paired w/ short term replacement therapy & we must reform the heavy handed system of punishment which just worsens the problem & creates a revolving door issue. The 1st step though is breaking the incestuous relationship between Government, international drug cartels & big pharma. They purposefully perpetuate this problem for profit & power.
Opiate addiction has actually been proven to be caused by the drug. Look up the foundation studies revolving around the finding of THIQ, the induction into mice/,effects/etc...the problem is the point of addiction is often hard to define because there are so many factors that go into it (which i belive he was eluding too). But i believe its a fact that some chemicals (specifically opiates) cause brain dependence over time)
@@pat2562 the very definition of addiction is physical and mental dependence...again, there are alot of other things that go into it like i previously said. But my main point is that there have been some chemicals that cause addiction...the addiction behavior is a different topic
@@weignerleigner3037 I think he's explained it in his rant about respectability. He resents knowing that people who don't take drugs think they are better than he is.
He never claimed otherwise. Anyone who would is a moron. He was saying opiates do not cause addiction for most people. Which they do not. Misused, abused or used correctly. He was speaking on addiction, not the means nor dependence to that. Edit: "cause" would be the wrong word, trigger and enable by method or means would be more accurate. Addiction is vast and drugs are one of many means to satisfy.
He's stated in other interviews that, so long as they are children, of course he doesn't want them taking drugs. But, when it comes time that they may make that decision - whatever point they are at - he would prefer his children to be genuinely education about drugs so that they are able to stay as safe as possible. Which seems to sort of make sense.
I can’t follow his logic at all. Why is he advocating for people to use drugs? We aren’t suppose to feel that way. I have seen drugs and alcohol ravage families and lives. This is crazy talk.
The comment section is particularly surprising and disappointing. Even a few comments saying that they didn’t watch the whole video and hence didn’t listen to his whole arguments. I don’t necessarily agree with every single thing he said but the part about selling some illegal drugs legally in forms that would limit addiction, toxic side effects and the lack of control is a fantastic idea. The mode of delivery, the dose and the purity make a difference to how the drug acts and how the person would respond. It could limit the number of addicts to some of these drugs. Another point is that too often we throw out the baby with the bathwater, some illegal drugs are more addictive or harmful than others (compared to therapeutic dose) but some of them have properties that could help people without much harm (cannabis, some mushrooms and ketamine) so these could be legalized, but as a society we often don’t want to because they are tarred with the same brush of “illegal drug bad”.
To say there is no use of IV when it comes to opiates is kinda stupid for a researcher of drugs. The reason u do IV is that u get a hit in 10 sec. And that fast action is very nice, much nicer than IM.
I'd suggest watching his other interviews or reading his book, in which he thoroughly presents both the research and studies that reflect what he's speaking about.
He has a plethora of peer-reviewed studies posted in the some of the most prestigious scientific journals. Pretty far from an opinion piece, I'm afraid. Check out his new book.
2 types of Alcohol are not the same. Wormwood Alcohol is illicit in many places, some other places allow a watered down version. Absenth is more comparable to psychodelics.
14:10 Totally with you here Konstantin. If someone is an outright a-hole or a latent a-hole *without* drugs or alcohol... their personality or general characti isn't magically going to transform to become a nicer person and treat people better. They're just going to become a drunk or high a-hole. I didn't like the way your interviewee just dismissed that question and that point without properly acknowledging or answering your question. Even after being asked it twice!
As bad as I think our governments are I really don’t think you can compare them to violent, murderous cartel leaders and members. And as interesting as this talk is and there is a case for viewing some drugs differently I think this guy is a bit off with a lot of things he’s saying. There is most definitely a lot of his own opinion in there even though he says ‘let’s look at the facts’
I would like to know what websiteaFrancis is looking at that refer to Marijuana as skunk??? Skunk is a vague description of weed. There are strains with skunk in the title, but to say "skunk will ruin your life, its more addictive, " ect...is something I've not heard or read in recent times....
InFrance, Canabis haș become a political freeness.THough under influence of THC killing a dog results in 2 years prison - like drinking a beer wouldn't excuse it, killing a jew (2019 Halimi /Traore) is considered as the only reason triggering the crime - thus the person got free.as in the past years we established that mainstream politics are medical experts above clinical studies (e.g. my remaining strike on TH-cam since a year), politics are medical.I know, if I see someone drinking a beer that doesn't like me, he still has no legal right to kill me.I know if he smokes a joint instead he has a legal free-pass to murder me.THe judge in reason was never investigated for her stand to human rights, if jewsare considered human etc., only the question was discussed to change a judgement (two different procedures, and the second would be no independent justice, the first that even a judge must be competent).
It's incorrect to say that "methamphetamine is just like D-amphetamine". They are chemically different and the while the pharmacology of the two is similar, the pharmacokinetics are not and this can change the effect significantly. For example: Methamphetamine is more lipophillic (fat-soluble) so it can cross the blood-brain barrier more quickly and give a bigger high and a quicker "rush", thereby making it more desirable as a recreational drug than a treatment for ADHD like Aderall is. It is also less susceptable to breakdown there so the high lasts longer. This is similar to the difference between heroin and morphine. Heroin is more lipophilic therefore, more euphoric, more rush!
He talks like he is high. All the weird pauses and his cadence, it's all very uncanny. I am more convinced than ever that regular drug use fucks with people mentally, lol.
No no no ! I don't care if he has 3 doctorates. This is not good for anybody. not a good look for black professionals endorsing recreational drug use . 😢😢😢
This is an interesting conversation and extremely complicated and cannot be simplified. He is coming from a place of logic and self ownership. Except the vast majority of society does not have those traits. We live in a society where instant gratification and self indulgence is the norm. Sure lets just legalize it all. Watch humanity spiral out of control even more than it is today. Its like the statement about ability to handle risk. Look at what just happened to the world and the billions who clearly cannot handle risk at all! Its a shame, but the majority of humanity cannot handle life. let alone free access to drugs. But I also like darwinism. Let it rip!
I don't think it's "extremely complicated" at all. It touches on a lot of different areas of our lives, and people are very uneducated (just cruise the comments section)... But complicated in terms of sorting out the causes of societal harm related to our drug policies? No, not really. The evidence is very clear on most issues. Fortunately almost no one, Dr. Hart included, is arguing for "free access" to drugs.
Very interesting the comments on here, all anecdotal, let's now be anecdotal about alcohol...it's like abortion, there is no definitive answer, both sides have good arguments.. and since when has the media been honest with us FF?
"like abortion [...] both sides have good arguments" They do now? Cool! The last time I checked, all their arguments were still starting with "the baby is actually an object and not a living thing" and were always ending with "the baby dies, using a vacuum blender". They finally discovered that adoption was a thing and you didn't have to kill the "inconvenience" and that Tinder will still be there, waiting for them in 9 months? Good for them! Cool for the babies too! Good arguments on both sides... "They do make a strong case as to why it's okay to kill babies"... Do you hear yourself... And don't come at me with: "they have good reasons", "maybe they have a health problem" blahblah I heard them all. Between 40 and 50 MILLION abortions each year... There are no good arguments when you know that an entire country worth of babies is killed each year. I don't care about your edge cases, there aren't 50 Millions of edge cases EACH YEAR. This is a common practice of killing babies and 99% of the time the reason is selfishness and lack of responsibility. Don't "both sides have good argument" me, you just like having the "get rid of the inconvenience" card in your game. Be fµcking honest, for once.
Drugs are only for weak people. I think the right to not have to live in a society with drug addicts weigh more than the right to be high. I think children have the right to drug free parrents who isnt selfish and only think about their own next org az m. But ok you go ahead and legalize idiocy, when someone die in a car crash due to someone else being high on drugs you should go to jail.. not the driver. Still want the responsibility? Didnt think so. Even with quality checks how healthy can it be if it need quality checks.. its not like we have quality checks on tomatoes because we are affraid they will kill someone otherwise. Its obviously a poison "but a little wont kill you" ok no but combined with other issues? What about long term damage? No respectable person use drugs.
@Perturbed Atheist Responsible use dont exist, youre funding criminal activities and put a burden on the healthcare system. So you think drug users stop just because they become parents? Most of the times problably not. Comparing it to alcohol is also brain dead because simply put, two errors dont make something correct. Are you saying there is 358 degrees between sobriety and being a full blown junkie? I dont agree I dont think its a constantly fluid scale like that. It goes from being a decent human being and once youre a drug user there is a big jump down and lets say its r-tarded. Once you become a full blown junkie youre simply a little bit more r-tarded but its pretty much the same. This is about drug users selfishness VS the welbeing of society.
@@grannyannie2948 That must mean that parents become much better when they take drugs then? I have plenty of personal experiences as well but I dont use them as statistics because they are just only that. My mom used to work in the criminal care (retired long time ago) and placed abused children in foster care homes. I think she strongly disagree with you. In fact, some of them even came to our family company and gave her flowers ten years after and thanked her. At the time they where very angry at her, threats and so on but with time they actually managed to get rid of the drugs and straighten up their life. In the end they where very thankful for and realised how wrong they where.
@Perturbed Atheist But do these mythical people exist? I know many upper middle class families where the parents use drugs and still maintain a shallow veneer of respectability, but they are not great parents.
Ok so I agree that these substances should be legal, mostly on libertarian grounds. But when you ask the question ‘why is alcohol legal but cocaine isn’t’, I’m sorry but ‘coz captalizm’ isn’t going to cut it. I expected something better from a professor. You’re telling me, deadly seriously, that there isn’t enough money in coke for it to have every bit as powerful a lobby? I’m not buying it, I’m sorry. Good and interesting interview overall though!
i first saw Carl on the internet-famous Bill O'Reilly video (your numbers are wrong!) - if you want to understand drug issues better, then this is the man to listen to
15:28 hmmm his answer to this question.... again he seems to be living in some kind of utopia or seems to think living in a utopia is possible. In that last question... he has administered drugs in laboratory situations to people and reckons they're happier and treat people better? Than may well be the case in the laboratory... but real life experience and statistics easily paints a different picture. Ask any A&E department on a Friday or Saturday night. And same with this question.... addiction will always be a huge problem because we don't now and won't ever live in an ideal society. I'm finding this guy really frustrating to listen to!
Humanity is a broken species, I'm guessing we were created this way for a reason. We suffer with anxiety, existential angst, depression, all kinds of problems related to unhealed trauma, especially unrecognized childhood trauma. We need something to take the edge off our suffering, at least sometimes. Dr. Carl Hart might not have perfect solutions, but his agenda seems to come from a place of good intention. Unlike some of the self serving psychopaths who maintain the current, cruel state of affairs in the majority of the world, maintaining laws which line certain pockets while harming innocent people who are just trying to find a little relief. You just have to 'follow the money' to see what is behind almost every kind of control, mandate or regulation in this world.... and drug laws are no different.
really disappointed by a lot of the comments on this, DR carl is erudite, informed, compassionate and able to break down his arguments into accessible examples, so gratefull for this excellent interview on a subject it is so depressing to be still arguing about in 2022 :)
@@aaronwatter he had every chance to give just a few solid examples of his "research" (which presumably has been replicated, otherwise is more junk psych), but failed to do so. Maybe he was trippin'
The people who thieve, or behave obnoxiously, violently, aggressively, etc., while under the influence of alcohol, cocaine, meth, or pcp, to name the main culprits, do so because of their personality, not because they have taken a drug.
The drug definitely plays a role in increasing violence. Drugs like PCP & meth literally causes manic dissociation, people have done fucked up acts under the influence
your right but in the same way that the majority of people only have hookups and one night stands while under the influence of a substance. Drugs lower inhabitions allowing the drug user more easilly to say fuck it, lets do this. It's why they used to give soldiers alcohol in war. After 1 bottle of whiskey a squad were much more willing to rationalize going to their death.
@@aaronwatter so 50 years of having no control over your cravings for an illicit psychoactive substance is ok, if the drug addicted simply assert that life is good (while permanently high). Gotcha. Sound logic.
@@svengali5415 you obviously don’t know much about drugs and that’s ok.in my 50 odd years as an addiction i was not out of my head all the time addiction is not like that,we are not all the same.i tried drugs and liked it and I still do at 73 thats just me
@@svengali5415 I don't know about "50 years of having no control over cravings". I only have about the past 25 years experience using opioids and many other drugs nearly without issue - including not being "permanently high", that's kind of silly - All while being a responsible and contributing member of my community (like most people who use drugs). Weird, huh?
I disagree. Drinking wasn’t “a problem” for me, til I lost my son. Yes the alcohol numbed me which helped with the shock. And I drenched myself in it every day for a couple years. Eventually you have to taper, or stop though. And depression /grief is quicksand. LUCKily I had a family member who read the riot act. Facing problems sober is way more effective.
Unless I misunderstand where your disagreement with dr. Hart lies, I think you’re making his point. He’s arguing that it’s internal issues themselves and not the substance itself that lead people to abuse and misuse
So you agree with him then, alcohol wasn't the problem was it. It was environmental factors for you. Sincere respect to yourself for coming out the other side of what must have been an awful time for you.
Join the exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Locals to hear *Carl* answer audience questions triggernometry.locals.com/
Why did you let this demented bed head loser professor allow your question to go unanswered about the fact that addicts don’t treat each other nice? Unlike what he wants us all to believe.
He lost me at "association is not correlation".
Again, I am asking that you invite a sex worker rights activist to the show to present the case for decrim and to balance out grossly inaccurate (mis)representation that Julie Bindel was allowed to fairly uncritically espouse some weeks ago.
But please pick someone more sensible and balanced that this guy.
I’m sorry but this guy is talking out of his backside. He’s either saying things that are painfully obvious or drastically inaccurate.
The worst episode I’ve seen by a country mile.
I could have refuted this guy with my high school education....rubbish!
@@j.joshuaamsa9591 what did he say that was wrong ?
@The Power of the Riff etc: And that’s really saying something- the trigger lads have quite a few in the back catalogue worthy of that particular title !
Happy to see that other viewers have noticed!
Knew it, just wait and here we go again, yep police shooting people, racism, and i want to do what i want to do and sod other people. Heard this whinging a million times before, not interesting, not fascinating just same old same old
He gives as rational an argument as a toddler who doesn't want to go to bed.
@@grannyannie2948 Well said Granny
@@godders7594 Thanks.
Maybe we keep hearing about it because it keeps happening?
@@aaronwatter do me a favour,
For someone so educated, he is so poor at making a convincing argument. So often Konstantin and Francis would ask him questions and it felt like he either wasn’t understanding them properly or was just choosing to waffle incoherently. Left this video even less convinced of drug legalisation.
Why do you think legislation is a positive?
@@theboraxbandit9563 He said the opposite of that, that he doesn't think it's a positive.
@@RapidAssaultEuro My bad.
I am not very far into it but this guy surprises me with the fact he’s this educated and experience because he certainly doesn’t come off like it because most of his answers so far I’ve been very unscientific. KK talked about how people act on alcohol and cocaine towards other people and this guy talked about how Bad incidents are in the minority, but how many people drink and cause problems? It happens every day in every town and every city and it’s so widespread. Because of the sheer volume of people doing it, it absolutely is a problem if only 5% of the people go down a dark path with it.
Unfortunately what is on show is the academic quality of an American liberal University professor.
This was really disappointing as I agree with his basic premise but found myself disagreeing with so much of what he said. He seemed ridiculously idealistic and ideological. He seemed to talk 95% rhetoric and 5% evidence
80-90% of people who use drugs are not addicted? Bullshit!
I read once that the line between having a cigarette and being an addicted smoker, is the point where you start buying cigarettes.
If this is true about illegal drugs if you buy them you are addicted.
@@grannyannie2948 Nah. I've taken most drugs, excluding heroin and meth, and bought them every week.
When I moved home, I lost contact with my usual dealer, and haven't paid for any drugs since then. Nor yet have I missed them.
The drugs were habit-forming.
I left work on a Friday, and went to see my dealer on the way home. It was part of a ritual which concluded a week of hard work, and set the stage for the weekend. Honestly - it could have just as easily been a visit to a whore, a visit to the barber, or social club thing. Just something to punctuate the week, and very little to do with the drugs themselves.
My experience isn't unusual. You grow older, and grow out of the habit.
(You might be right about cigarettes. I never got around to buying them - too embarrassing)
Nay. Weed, acid, mushrooms, mdma : nobody is really addicted. Even coke - please don't deny it before researching.
Alcohol. A minority of drinkers are addicted, but a massive problem for those who are.
Heroin. Actually pretty rare for anyone to take heroin regularly. I've never met anyone who has taken more than one hit, as far as I know.
(My girlfriend works as a govt drugs counsellor, I used to take a stupid quantity of drugs, but nothing for 10 years, so some experience.)
@@tonycatman Thankyou for sharing. I'm not sure that I approve of visiting prostitutes either. Perhaps it's a generational thing. I'm glad you're not addicted. But it does beg the question, if you were not dependent, why did you waste money on drugs?
You could have bought a house, or invested your money. I know I'm addicted to cigarettes. And I accept how that has altered my situation financially. Cigarettes are $50 a packet in my country.
Can't watch this. He has some appalling ideas
Nobody seems to have heard of chasing the dragon. Even if they're legal people will still dedicate their existence to chasing that high and they'll do anything to get their next hit
Prime example of starting off with the conclusion you want, and working your way backwards from there.
Yeah, the fabricated statistics he uses scream “I’ve already made up my mind”
Well said.
So you wanted the opposite conclusion
It's called a hypothesis
@@tim3062 the defining characteristic of a hypothesis is that it’s framed and expressed as speculation.
He’s making up statistics, the defining characteristic of a statistic is that it’s framed as fact.
So no, it’s not called a hypothesis.
Having grown up in a community where half the kids don't graduate high school and a large plurality of our parents were meth heads, pot fiends, alcoholics, and other assorted types of junkies, this idea that most people are using this stuff responsibly and the rest is just silly anecdotes, is absolutely baffling. This guy's living under a rock or something.
He's living on a university campus, so this explains his delusions. The only reason why we reason we see the 60s as the summer of love and hippie freedom time is because professors and media types have survivor bias. All those that died (mainly teenagers) from heroin use and sexual exploitation are forgotton.
Yes I used to work in foster care. In every case of child / abuse neglect, there was a parent using illegal drugs.
Agree.
I think a distinction to be made here is that addiction happens with or without drugs, and those same self-destructive habits rise up. Gambling is a great example of this, you'll see people completely deteriorate and combust without the use of drugs. My understanding of what he's saying is that the tools being used aren't the problem, what's driving the addiction is the problem (i.e growing up on welfare and thinking that's going to be your future too, hard not to feel hopeless and wanting to escape that through the easiest means available).
So the problem is poverty...
None of this would be an issue if people were responsible for their actions,whether high or not. Problem is people want to legalize without that factor.
We have responsibilities for our actions it’s called The Laws.
Sober or High you pay the price.
@@jamesperrie1393 No, people get cared for in County Hospitals and Canadian Health Care, et al....
@@jamesperrie1393 unfortunately if you're high on drugs it often means you can't be convicted of higher crimes (murder often dropped to manslaughter for instance) because of being mentally impaired, so called "mens rea". I for one would alter the law to stop lesser charging for those on drugs so they do actual get sentenced properly
I disagree. Drugs don't make people treat others better, it makes people more self absorbed.
Reinforced through media?
Nah, man, meth addicts being bad is reinforced by my neighbor burning his apartment building down and seeing the charred body of a victim of his.
I think this hmguy has partaken a little too much for reasoned discussion.
Now you have made me interested in listening. Their last guest who spoke about drugs I really enjoyed. I know/knew far too many f'ups who are either dead, ruined their and their families' lives or mine. All levels of education, incomes - a real mix of people.
I read more comments. I'll skip this one.
@@pantameowmeow.s.1149 you should make up your own mind, it is quite possible I have a negative bias because pf experiences in my life.
I think I'm rational... but we all do, don't we?
So you saw one bad outcome of someone who used methamphetamine.
Are you suggesting that this outcome represents a large percentage of all those who take it?
Because millions of people have, so by your reasoning there would be millions of reports of things just like you mentioned. But of course there aren’t.
Just like people drunk on alcohol have done the same types of things. Does that mean that alcohol will generally cause those outcomes? Of course not. We know it doesn’t. It’s for sale at nearly every grocery store in the entire USA.
I know that seeing one or two very scary bad outcomes from some particular drug can weigh heavily on our hearts, but we must always make sure we use our minds and ask the question: how often is this the result of using this drug?
If it’s rare than we have an answer.
If it’s common then we have an answer.
@@danepaulstewart8464 not "one bad outcome", rather a nearly endless parade of negative outcomes that didn't dissuade me from my libertarian view until one was so in my face that I couldn't brush it aside.
Alcohol is a bit of a different story. It's use coincides with civilization: we've had over ten thousand years of mutual evolution...and we still haven't overcome the issues it causes.
Rather than pointing to it, and saying that is what all should be like, I see it as a cautionary tale: do NOT let a drug, even if it seems benign, into the system as a whole, because it will never balance out.
Yeah this guy isn't convincing. There are a lot of holes in his "logic". Addiction is real, it is a problem, and the idea that enabling drug use through some type of legalization or controlled administration would help heal the very real population of the addicted is absolute nonsense. Going to have to give a hard pass on that one.
Not true, Switzerland had the biggest open drug scene of Europe in the 90s, nearly completely gone thanks to programs such as methadone support or supervised places with clean needles etc.
Gigantic, obvious holes in his logic. I can appreciate the need to de-stigmatize things so that we can have honest conversations and reach the truth, but I’m pro-legalization and still have problems with his position
@@konmoe121 ok, but his claim that addiction is some fabricated nonsense pedaled by the media is ridiculous.
@@konmoe121 that’s containing a problem not solving it. Our homeless crisis in this country is a product of drug addiction, we can contain it like them or even Netherlands who have Done a good job, but you still have a drug problem, it just doesn’t look as bad since the people are getting their drugs from the govt instead of on the street.
@@weignerleigner3037 I’d love to know how much of that homeless situation was because of alcohol which is legal pretty much everywhere. I’d love to compare and contrast.
As an old junky i wouldnt recommend getting a habit to my worst enemy . There just isnt anyone i hate that much. And when you get into crack heads you need to keep your doors well locked, the misery they have caused through burglaries etc. There is a really shit side and that is a fact regardless as to what he says here.
It's been demonstrated that decriminalisation reduces the drug-related crime rates..
Trudat. But decriminalize it. Write prescriptions. Get the medical community involved. And get mental health professionals in there
@@tcritt OBVIOUSLY - because personal use is no longer classified as a crime, there will be a reduction in drug-related crime rates.
@@svengali5415 No... that's not what it means. Drug-related crime is stuff like burglary, shoplifting, violence and murder. It's the stuff done by addicts to get their fix and the stuff done by dealers during territorial disputes.
My parents were strolling down the street in a middle-class neighborhood. My father was beaten to death by a much younger man who was “only” on PCP. The man was not convicted of murder because “he was on a mind altering drug.” My mother had a nervous breakdown. I was 19 and had to leave college to take care of my two baby sisters. That was 30 years ago. Please know mr. hart that, this tragedy precipitated by the usage of PCP, not only broke my heart but caused unbearable hardship for the rest of my life. You, I’m sure will reduce this to a mere statistic that rarely happens with the usage PCP to justify all of your purported research. What is more disturbing is to watch you pontificate with no scientific data, statistics or references. You sir are a danger to society.
Bullshit
Totally agree, he is a dangerous menace
I feel for you. That's unbelievable. I don't think he's simply saying that drugs are good though.
e.priest. Thank you that is very kind if you.
@@aribatt2237 He made point that the drug shouldn't be treated negatively, that people shouldn't be shot to death for being on it. But that doesn't mean that he is arguing that a murder should be excused for being on that drug either. Could your father have being beaten to death by someone not on drugs? It's entirely possible, just saying that it was because of the drug is too simplistic a response.
Well anyway, that person should have been judged by their actions, not their blood test.
This was a really interesting interview perhaps for all the wrong reasons for me 😅
I believe in legalisation and regulation of both drugs and prostitution but wow did I disagree with this guy on a lot of levels!
He seemed to have a very unrealistic rose tinted view of the effects of hard drugs based on his own experiences, biases and experiments done on healthy volunteers in controlled environments.
We cannot be naive to the potential harms and pitfalls of drug addiction just like alcohol hence why it would need tight regulation. Anyone who has spent time or worked with addicts will be aware of the potential problems.
He also has the typical blame capitalism for everything attitude but he can't see (or won't see)that the obvious capitalist solution to the drug war and cartel violence is legalisation, taxation and regulation. Social conservatism is the driving force for prohibition not capitalism.
"They haven't found the way to make money off drugs yet" is perhaps one of the stupidest things I've heard from any of your guests.
Similarly thinking the drug cartels will continue to make billions without the illegal drug trade. Suggesting the drug barons who murder many in brutal ways are morally equivalents of politicians, shit this man needs to spend sometime outside of academia and in the real world!
BUMP THIS!
If they ever invite someone who argues for decriminalisation of prostitution, I PRAY they pick someone more sensible and balanced than this guy.
Besides, regulation of prostitution doesn’t work. It creates a two tier system with difficult standards to meet by all and that still punishes people. Full decriminalisation in relation to prostitution works far better.
@@joanna9215 I agree with legalisation. By regulation in prostitution I would mean ensuring safety of the prostitutes, ensure no exploitative pimps and safeguarding against human trafficking and modern slavery. Basically create a union! 😄
@@williambrookings722 😂yayy
I listened but this guy tried to cancel out a narrative with a narrative. Drugs ripped through my family - sure people took it and are ultimately responsible, but crack helped with the weight loss, loss of teeth, crack addicted baby born, etc. Sure drugs were no issue at all.
Many people have drug addicts in their family, and many people blame the drugs instead of the underlying issues such as abuse, neglect, racism and poverty.
Sounds good, let's play out this theory and see how things go. I am sure people who are at the bottom of society will be better off after adding drug addiction to their laundry list of problems. Non-sense.
An extremely dangerous person’s ideas are dr. Harts, who seems like he has partaken too much from the illegal substances he has been giving his test subjects.
Addiction is the exception rather than the rule in people who aren't burdened with a "laundry list" of problems in the first place (but at least you acknowledge the importance of that List).
90% of people don’t have a problem with alcohol?!? Man where are you getting your facts? That’s a gross understatement of the problem with alcohol! If I had to guess without looking into the data, I’d say 90% of people DO have a problem with alcohol.
I guess it depends greatly on how one defines "problem".
Scenario 1: A person acquires and uses a particular dose of a particular banned drug under prohibition.
Scenario 2: That same person acquires and uses the same dose of the same drug under legal regulation.
Scenario 2, it seems to me, is never going to cause more harm than Scenario 1, and will very often cause significantly less harm in multiple ways, and not just to the user. This disparity will often be greater with use of "harder" drugs. Unknown strength, adulteration, having to deal with criminals to acquire the drug, the criminalisation of otherwise law-abiding citizens, and having to pay way over the drug's "real" value (possibly leading to acquisitive crime) are just a few examples. Many drug-related deaths stem from ignorance of basic facts (e.g. dancing too much after taking MDMA); under legal regulation, users could be educated on a particular drug before being able to obtain it.
So, the question is whether or not prohibition has sufficient benefits (e.g. deterrence) to compensate for all that extra harm. I am not at all convinced that it does.
However, theory and discussion can only take us so far with an issue as complex as this. The only way to really know whether a policy works is to try it. If prohibition worked even somewhat well, there may be a case for sticking with the devil you know rather than risking a different approach. But, in reality, prohibition has failed so miserably and reliably that it seems worth having a go at legal regulation. Certainly, where cannabis has been legally regulated, the dire predictions made by prohibitionists have largely not materialised.
I feel like once something is made legal for recreational use there wont be any going back. Prohibition may have worked if people where not already in love with drinking. The heart of this issue is that people want to feel good. The right way to feel good is to do something good, that naturally makes us feel good. Rather then an artificial feel good, that doesn't come with work attached to it. I think drugs may help with people who have illnesses. But if people aren't sick, then no drugs should be the goal. We should keep our mind the way nature intended, as evolution has worked it out to be. I don't think there are any countries that have tried legalizing heaver drugs, so we don't know how bad that could really be. People have started to warm up to weed, yet it at the same time is changing, and becoming stronger. Increasing the dosage of a drug can make a big difference on the body. Bottom line is that its real dangerous to use any kind of medication with a butt load of research on it. And its just not what people seemed to be concerned with.
Thank you for having a brain unlike most of these comments
From what I've seen from this interview so far, it seems like he is too caught up on just laboratory research. Results in real life vs in a laboratory can be vastly different. Cocaine, alcohol, and other drugs can absolutely make people do aggressive and dangerous things. In both my personal experience, and what I have seen others do. He's right that they absolutely make people feel better, and for some, even most people, it will make them treat others better. But there is a large portion of users where that is not the case. I feel as though he is not being honest about the negatives of taking these drugs, and making them more accessible. And this is coming from someone who is very much in favor of decriminalizing drugs, and making them less stigmatized and more accessible.
Ive been taking various recreational drugs for years with no significant consequences and certainly no violence towards anyone else. Should i be criminalised for taking them because some people cant do the same?
He's literally doing the opposite. He's done research with actual addicts.
Aggressive people are aggressive intoxicated or sober. Your being doesn't change whence under the influence.
@@11East Work on your reading comprehension. I stated in my comment that I support decriminalization and destigmatization, and I even use drugs recreationally too. My point was that he was being dishonest when he said that drugs make people treat others better. That can happen, but I know first hand, and through observation of others that being high can make you do very dangerous and antisocial things.
@@MeanBeanComedy I am not an aggressive person, and I have taken drugs that have made me burst into rage at the drop of a hat at certain times. Your being can indeed change depending on the dosage and drug. And no, one of the main things you learn from research is that results in the real world and results in a lab can be VERY different. Studying an addict under a lab settings vs observing in the real world will have different results. I know FIRST HAND as I actually have experience with drugs.
@@christianr4769 Must've been fighting back some rage somewhere that let it out.
Drugs can't change your person. They can only reveal things about you you didn't know or were in denial of.
I expected more “evidence” from this dude, instead I just heard a bunch of opinions.
Why didn't he bring up the legal prescription of heroin in Denmark and Switzerland... probably bcoz it would destroy his point that ppl wouldn't do IV if they had pharmagrade.
@Hellig Usvart i didnt say there was a problem problem... but ppl in them shoot the heroin. He claimed that ppl only shoot drugs bcoz the quality of drugs is poor. And thats kind of strange thing to claim.
People use heroin intravenously for a bigger, stronger more intense high. The same reason why people who smoke cannabis use a bong, or people wrap powder in a fag paper and swallow it instead of snorting. Legalisation will not change the habits of users looking for a bigger high. Straw man argument that relies on people being responsible who have shown themselves to lack responsibility 🤷🏻♂️
@@kevingodfrey7771 there is some truth in it, and that is that many ppl start to shoot up bcoz its too expensive to snort or smoke, I was one of those ppl. But once u have mainlined its very hard to go back...
But then again.. I have never smoked pure heroin base so who knows? Smoking crack gives u a very intense and fast high so maybe it would work.. I guess it depends if u can get enough into your body in one inhalation.
@Hellig Usvart I know, but dr Carl hart claim is that people wouldn’t use it via Iv if given the option of pharmaceutical grade via a option other than IV, I argue that many still would do it via IV regardless for other reasons.
Imagine getting in the situation of having to choose between meth and your children’s dinner. I watched this guy on Joe Rogan, and his message is naive.
This guy is so detached from real life, with his good quality columbian cocaine supply. The goal isn’t to make life better with a drug! What happens during times when supply chains break? Maybe he had a nice supply of heroin over covid-19 lockdowns but I can’t imagine his kids would have had a nice time if he was on the mother of all comedowns. Not a well picked, well thought out guest. You guys are meant to be intelligent gatekeepers. You have a platform where you point attention, attention is a moral act!
We actually rarely hear that drugs are bad. Much tv/movies portray hard partying as harmless fun; many journalists claim weed is harmless and that it's legalisation is as important as say medicare for all; alcohol is acceptable (while tobacco isn't). Is see from the comments most people are wise to this guy.
Dr Hart makes some good points, and some TERRIBLE ones. “Feeling good” is a massively complex thing. I’ve worked with addicts for many years, and studied (and used) just about every substance. Regulating a pill form of heroin would lead to no where but more problems. I’m definitely not saying there isn’t a place for safe drug use and regulation. (As a psychotherapist with a focus in trauma, I’ve been closely watching the research on MDMA, psilocybin, etc.)
I’m not convinced of his acumen and will be curious to look into his credentials and publications. Columbia?!? I hate to say that now I have to wonder if he was a diversity hire.
I totally agree about the "feeling good" argument. That is a subjective thing, not a universal one. At this point I became even more skeptical of his position on these issues.
Tries to convince us he's a scientist but ultimately his argument is based on feels over reals and his foray into racism rhetoric says all you should need to know about the angle he's coming from
@@DJRockford83 Right??! I’m guessing he’d suggest that if there were enough jobs programs and we regulated the quality of crack cocaine, the inner city epidemic of the 80s would’ve never happened. 🤦🏻♂️
A pill form of heroin could be cooked up into a shot like methadone.
Not buying the people on drugs treat people better.
_"Im an excellent responsable carefuk driver when drunk, therefore everyone should be able to drive drunk. Make it legal."_ argument type?? 🤔
Sums it up.
The problem is though that drugs severely impair your judgment. A user may think that he is being normal and nice, but in reality he's ranting and raving and generally freaking people out. Heroin and cocaïne make you think only about yourself. Cannabis can make you paranoid, even when you are not taking it. MDMA might make you friendly and nice, but that's not a good thing bc unless you are 100% safe (at home for example), someone could seriously take advantage of you.
Are you including alcohol in that?
@@tcritt yes I don't see why not
Just because something is made legal doesn’t mean it would wipe out the illegal drugs on the street. The street drug would be at a much higher dose and would be much cheaper due to less regulation. So for me his argument doesn’t hold water. Plus, as someone who battles a chronic illness for 32 years where I’ve been in hospital close to 200 times needing opioids, it gets harder each time I go through withdrawals after discharge. - I wouldn’t recommend it for anyone
I like to think I have an open mind with a natural scepsis always present. I'm also a huge fan of triggernometry. But the way some of the statements by this figure went unchallenged, made my blood boil. Yes, perhaps giving a one-time, mild dosage of cocaine to a stable, healthy individual in the lab, can make them happier and more pleasant. But in the real world, continued use of cocaine makes someone paranoid, poor and even psychotic. What happens in the real world should inform decision making, not artifical lab experiments by a reasearcher with an agenda. More fundamentally: is life about YOU feeling as pleasant as possible all of the time? Or is it about dealing with the hardship when it comes along? Or about the people around you that care about you or depend on you? Of all the episodes, this is the first time I feel someone should have been censored, a very strange and unique feeling for me. Finally: it it just me or does this mean radiate hypocrisy? In the beginning he dismissed left/right, progressive/conservative etc to appear neutral, but he is actually an activist on the very extreme end of one side regarding drug policy. Also: he pretends to be a rare peddler of facts, an antidote to misinformation, but is the classical example of a researcher using artificial lab experiments and pharmacological nuance to make grand claims on what role these substances should play in society. But if you open your eyes to what's going on, drugs are a source of great tragedy too and not only for their users, but the people around them. Sometimes they can help and heal, but often they are an escape and prevent the kind of healing people need to live a long, happy and stable life.
Many sceptical aspects to his theories. I have had a life long relationship with drugs and am now totally sober however. Some drugs are actually physically addictive such as heroin, the more you take it the more you need to stave off the very painful physical withdrawal. Weed also in my opinion was one of the worst drugs I ever got involved with as I witnessed many friends suffer psychosis induced from pot smoking. Then there are come downs. What goes up must come down and the best way is to use downers however at some point you are always going to suffer some kind of withdrawal from drugs no matter the dosage. Then there is addiction. Addictive personalities are not created because of the substance itself but run much deeper. People who are totally sober can have addictive personalities yet their addiction is played out in other non substance use forms, sex, gambling, eating etc.
I think there is more to it than what this guy is saying.
great comment
Perhaps more people in the comments section refuting Dr. Hart would hold a different view if the many people in their circle who routinely use and enjoy what are believed to be the most harmful, problematic, and addictive drugs *(without major harm, problems, or addiction)* came out of the closet?
The Trigger boys' biggest blind spot. Uncomfortable to see them nodding and giggling along to whatever 'cool' drug liberalisers say.
He seems like many modern scientists. He is blinded by his ideals. People take coke to feel better, people who feel better treat others better, therefore people who do coke treat others better is such bad bad logic.
Of course that's not exactly how it plays out in the real world, but even if it were true (which it's not) that *100% of the time* people treated others *worse*... Is that a legitimate reason to prohibit access to safe versions of the substances people seek, with the attendant violence, deaths and imprisonment created by the same laws?
@@aaronwatter why, yes, of course it is.
Interesting conversation. I don't know if I agree with everything, but obviously because it is a vast topic a lot of contextual tangents and exceptions to the rule could not be explored fully. It has certainly given me new stream of thoughts. I would definitely check out Dr Carl Hart's work in time, and try to understand his evidence and detailed view point. At the very least this conversation opens room for a possibility of different perspective on drugs and makes me curious enough to investigate further. Thank you guys as always.
Feels over reals seem to be his primary argument and that should ring huge alarm bells
@@DJRockford83 he’s literally a neuroscientist who’s performed studies for over 30 years. Listen to the video you’re commenting on.
Haha taking cocaine makes you more social and nicer..... Beyond words
I’d agree it makes you more social... until you start punching people
I think that the point there is that a person who is using that stuff already has issues and that they are nicer and more social than the base line for that particular person. I am not sure if that is true with cocaine, but most light users of mary jane and alcohol are like that. It is just the onces where the addiction takes over thier life that his words become laughable.
I didn’t watch the episode because I’ve seen this guy on other podcasts, so I pretty much know what he’s about.
Sometimes you have to put your own experiences ahead of the experts… Every person I knew from my estate who tried crack or heroin became addicts, most of them are now dead or in prison.
There’s my first hand experience, sorry but I can’t take his “findings” seriously.
You must be a woman.
@@joemahma3017 contentious issue these days. What is a woman?
Can we please get a definition of Drugs? I hear alcohol in the same conversation as heroin. Is caffeine part of the discussion? Shouldn't the discussion be about ABUSE of the chemicals?
Alcohol is a drug
this is the first time I do not agree with the guest
Expertise?
Treatment?
30 years later he's realised he knows fuck all!
Your liberty to put whatever you like in your body as an adult stops at the point where I am potentially endangered in the workplace by your level of sobriety, and if my children are spending any time with you ‘in loco parentis’ as a supposedly sober, aware and responsible adult.
Nobody said u should do drugs on the job. Should you lose your job bcoz you drink 5 beers after work?
@@kungfreddie I don’t think I was actually suggesting that someone who is drinking AFTER a work shift is actually endangering me while we are both at work. But, Are you making the assumption that everyone will only ever take their drug of choice outside of work hours and definitely be fully clean and sober by the time the next shift rolls around?
@@virginiacharlotte7007 It depends on what drug, how much, the individual, and the set & setting, but I believe that is what Dr. Hart generally means when he speaks of responsible grown-ups, yes.
This was great, I'd love to see Carl and Proff Nutt and Johan Hari all talking to Peter Hitchens who has the most conservative view of drugs possible.
I would like to see if they can change the mind of Peter Hitchens, he likes to thi k that he's open to having mind changed, if we can change his mind then maybe there is hope to change the minds of others?
He said something like using drugs “can help people become closer.” This is such a dangerous thing to suggest, even if it is sometimes true. If you need to be high to do interpersonal work, you are either a.) an extreme exception to the rule, or b.) living out a delusion.
A person’s mind and the nature of their adult relationships develop through an enormous matrix of experiences and genetic and epigenetic potentialities. The idea that drugs can be broadly made safe or effective in any kind of treatment is a child’s dream. Marijuana can be helpful for some, and cause a stable person with a psychotically-organized psyche to tip into psychosis. This guy is making broad statements where they need not be made. Books titled “XYZ For Dummies” are never very deeply thought-out books, despite the letters and credentials behind the author’s name.
Exactly. Thank you so much for speaking up about this man’s irresponsibility and immorality to drug using despite his credentials.
All this because the meaning of “can” is lost..
@@jasondoolin6476 No. All this because this guy is a charlatan.
The “can” comment is as valid as “eating blueberries can help people become closer.”
After 15 minutes I couldn't take this seriously anymore. I felt like I would have to be high to listen to any more.
Everyone I knew who tried drugs early were from quite poor or uneducated families. No one is proposing children should do drugs.
Everyone i know with an alcohol problem is self medicating, whether knowingly or not. The alcohol itself does not cause this from what I’ve seen.
Thank you
In my opinion its largely a spiritual problem. I was an addict myself, i got through it & got educated as an addiction specialist. Ive seen the systems short comings myself. So much so that I couldn't continue doing it. I watched it fail so many but it can be fixed. In my experience treatment centers that are devoted to a spiritual method have a higher success rate than those using other methods. Especially when paired w/ short term replacement therapy & we must reform the heavy handed system of punishment which just worsens the problem & creates a revolving door issue. The 1st step though is breaking the incestuous relationship between Government, international drug cartels & big pharma. They purposefully perpetuate this problem for profit & power.
Excellent comment .
Opiate addiction has actually been proven to be caused by the drug. Look up the foundation studies revolving around the finding of THIQ, the induction into mice/,effects/etc...the problem is the point of addiction is often hard to define because there are so many factors that go into it (which i belive he was eluding too). But i believe its a fact that some chemicals (specifically opiates) cause brain dependence over time)
Many medications cause dependence, but that's not addiction.
@@pat2562 the very definition of addiction is physical and mental dependence...again, there are alot of other things that go into it like i previously said. But my main point is that there have been some chemicals that cause addiction...the addiction behavior is a different topic
Yeah this guy is a terrible person. Idk why he wants people to accept drugs.
@@weignerleigner3037 I think he's explained it in his rant about respectability. He resents knowing that people who don't take drugs think they are better than he is.
He never claimed otherwise. Anyone who would is a moron. He was saying opiates do not cause addiction for most people. Which they do not. Misused, abused or used correctly. He was speaking on addiction, not the means nor dependence to that. Edit: "cause" would be the wrong word, trigger and enable by method or means would be more accurate. Addiction is vast and drugs are one of many means to satisfy.
Cartels: if you can smuggle drugs you can smuggle guns or traffic people
Is he saying the crack epidemic didn’t happen?
Does he want his children to enjoy drugs?
He's stated in other interviews that, so long as they are children, of course he doesn't want them taking drugs. But, when it comes time that they may make that decision - whatever point they are at - he would prefer his children to be genuinely education about drugs so that they are able to stay as safe as possible. Which seems to sort of make sense.
Gabor Mate is far superior when it comes to the Underlying problems. For Example Trauma.... Check Out his Hungry Ghosts materials...
I can’t follow his logic at all. Why is he advocating for people to use drugs? We aren’t suppose to feel that way. I have seen drugs and alcohol ravage families and lives. This is crazy talk.
The James Webb Telescope is orbiting itself while looking backwards.
The comment section is particularly surprising and disappointing. Even a few comments saying that they didn’t watch the whole video and hence didn’t listen to his whole arguments.
I don’t necessarily agree with every single thing he said but the part about selling some illegal drugs legally in forms that would limit addiction, toxic side effects and the lack of control is a fantastic idea. The mode of delivery, the dose and the purity make a difference to how the drug acts and how the person would respond. It could limit the number of addicts to some of these drugs.
Another point is that too often we throw out the baby with the bathwater, some illegal drugs are more addictive or harmful than others (compared to therapeutic dose) but some of them have properties that could help people without much harm (cannabis, some mushrooms and ketamine) so these could be legalized, but as a society we often don’t want to because they are tarred with the same brush of “illegal drug bad”.
To say there is no use of IV when it comes to opiates is kinda stupid for a researcher of drugs. The reason u do IV is that u get a hit in 10 sec. And that fast action is very nice, much nicer than IM.
Trigger keeps moving from strength to strength. Trinidad
What are his data?
This seems an opinion piece.
Not sure how much of an expert he is.
I'd suggest watching his other interviews or reading his book, in which he thoroughly presents both the research and studies that reflect what he's speaking about.
He has a plethora of peer-reviewed studies posted in the some of the most prestigious scientific journals. Pretty far from an opinion piece, I'm afraid. Check out his new book.
@@aaronwatter it's a dreadful shame he didnt speak to any of this fabulous persuasive research. I just heard him say "nonsense" repeatedly.
2 types of Alcohol are not the same. Wormwood Alcohol is illicit in many places, some other places allow a watered down version. Absenth is more comparable to psychodelics.
Video proudly sponsored by northern Mexican cartels..🤨
I haven't disagreed with a guest on this podcast so much in a long time. Good to have differing opinions, but I'm not with this guy.
14:10
Totally with you here Konstantin.
If someone is an outright a-hole or a latent a-hole *without* drugs or alcohol... their personality or general characti isn't magically going to transform to become a nicer person and treat people better.
They're just going to become a drunk or high a-hole.
I didn't like the way your interviewee just dismissed that question and that point without properly acknowledging or answering your question. Even after being asked it twice!
The cognitive dissonance in this comment section is awesome
He’s correct
That cold-cut at 50:25 was fucking brilliant. Great editing.
As bad as I think our governments are I really don’t think you can compare them to violent, murderous cartel leaders and members. And as interesting as this talk is and there is a case for viewing some drugs differently I think this guy is a bit off with a lot of things he’s saying. There is most definitely a lot of his own opinion in there even though he says ‘let’s look at the facts’
Well if u legalize u would get rid of the cartel. At least from the drug trade.
The football hooligan thing is true
I would like to know what websiteaFrancis is looking at that refer to Marijuana as skunk??? Skunk is a vague description of weed. There are strains with skunk in the title, but to say "skunk will ruin your life, its more addictive, " ect...is something I've not heard or read in recent times....
The Scientific certainty of the phrase "can be," is amusing.
Interesting concepts raised but functioning users can still addicts and it can still be a problem
I think the real crime is when *one third* of the population is at 360p.
I think you two should bring the Author, Beth Macy who wrote the book ‘Dopesick’ into this topic.
the run dmc clip is fucking epic comedy :p
InFrance, Canabis haș become a political freeness.THough under influence of THC killing a dog results in 2 years prison - like drinking a beer wouldn't excuse it, killing a jew (2019 Halimi /Traore) is considered as the only reason triggering the crime - thus the person got free.as in the past years we established that mainstream politics are medical experts above clinical studies (e.g. my remaining strike on TH-cam since a year), politics are medical.I know, if I see someone drinking a beer that doesn't like me, he still has no legal right to kill me.I know if he smokes a joint instead he has a legal free-pass to murder me.THe judge in reason was never investigated for her stand to human rights, if jewsare considered human etc., only the question was discussed to change a judgement (two different procedures, and the second would be no independent justice, the first that even a judge must be competent).
How wounded full it would be to buy chemically clean cocaine ass a nasals pray 🤓
In a perfect world✅
It's incorrect to say that "methamphetamine is just like D-amphetamine". They are chemically different and the while the pharmacology of the two is similar, the pharmacokinetics are not and this can change the effect significantly. For example: Methamphetamine is more lipophillic (fat-soluble) so it can cross the blood-brain barrier more quickly and give a bigger high and a quicker "rush", thereby making it more desirable as a recreational drug than a treatment for ADHD like Aderall is. It is also less susceptable to breakdown there so the high lasts longer.
This is similar to the difference between heroin and morphine. Heroin is more lipophilic therefore, more euphoric, more rush!
We’ve never been in a data based world, humans get in the way. I for one welcome our AI overlords.
Just me or are his pupils the size of half-dollars?
He talks like he is high. All the weird pauses and his cadence, it's all very uncanny. I am more convinced than ever that regular drug use fucks with people mentally, lol.
No no no ! I don't care if he has 3 doctorates. This is not good for anybody. not a good look for black professionals endorsing recreational drug use . 😢😢😢
Carbon Fiber ftw 🙌
This is an interesting conversation and extremely complicated and cannot be simplified. He is coming from a place of logic and self ownership. Except the vast majority of society does not have those traits. We live in a society where instant gratification and self indulgence is the norm. Sure lets just legalize it all. Watch humanity spiral out of control even more than it is today. Its like the statement about ability to handle risk. Look at what just happened to the world and the billions who clearly cannot handle risk at all! Its a shame, but the majority of humanity cannot handle life. let alone free access to drugs. But I also like darwinism. Let it rip!
Are you using a slippery slope?
I don't think he's coming from logic and self ownership, but from the position of a naughty child.
I don't think it's "extremely complicated" at all. It touches on a lot of different areas of our lives, and people are very uneducated (just cruise the comments section)... But complicated in terms of sorting out the causes of societal harm related to our drug policies? No, not really. The evidence is very clear on most issues.
Fortunately almost no one, Dr. Hart included, is arguing for "free access" to drugs.
This was far from an 'Honest Conversation'.
drugs should be free and high quality.
Bodily freedom.....C vaccunes......Ha!
Very interesting the comments on here, all anecdotal, let's now be anecdotal about alcohol...it's like abortion, there is no definitive answer, both sides have good arguments.. and since when has the media been honest with us FF?
"like abortion [...] both sides have good arguments"
They do now? Cool! The last time I checked, all their arguments were still starting with "the baby is actually an object and not a living thing" and were always ending with "the baby dies, using a vacuum blender". They finally discovered that adoption was a thing and you didn't have to kill the "inconvenience" and that Tinder will still be there, waiting for them in 9 months? Good for them! Cool for the babies too!
Good arguments on both sides... "They do make a strong case as to why it's okay to kill babies"... Do you hear yourself...
And don't come at me with: "they have good reasons", "maybe they have a health problem" blahblah I heard them all. Between 40 and 50 MILLION abortions each year... There are no good arguments when you know that an entire country worth of babies is killed each year. I don't care about your edge cases, there aren't 50 Millions of edge cases EACH YEAR. This is a common practice of killing babies and 99% of the time the reason is selfishness and lack of responsibility.
Don't "both sides have good argument" me, you just like having the "get rid of the inconvenience" card in your game. Be fµcking honest, for once.
Drugs are only for weak people. I think the right to not have to live in a society with drug addicts weigh more than the right to be high. I think children have the right to drug free parrents who isnt selfish and only think about their own next org az m.
But ok you go ahead and legalize idiocy, when someone die in a car crash due to someone else being high on drugs you should go to jail.. not the driver. Still want the responsibility? Didnt think so. Even with quality checks how healthy can it be if it need quality checks.. its not like we have quality checks on tomatoes because we are affraid they will kill someone otherwise. Its obviously a poison "but a little wont kill you" ok no but combined with other issues? What about long term damage? No respectable person use drugs.
I used to work in foster care, I don't recall ever seeing a case of abuse or neglect where the parents were not on illegal drugs.
@Perturbed Atheist Responsible use dont exist, youre funding criminal activities and put a burden on the healthcare system. So you think drug users stop just because they become parents? Most of the times problably not. Comparing it to alcohol is also brain dead because simply put, two errors dont make something correct.
Are you saying there is 358 degrees between sobriety and being a full blown junkie? I dont agree I dont think its a constantly fluid scale like that. It goes from being a decent human being and once youre a drug user there is a big jump down and lets say its r-tarded. Once you become a full blown junkie youre simply a little bit more r-tarded but its pretty much the same.
This is about drug users selfishness VS the welbeing of society.
@@grannyannie2948 That must mean that parents become much better when they take drugs then? I have plenty of personal experiences as well but I dont use them as statistics because they are just only that.
My mom used to work in the criminal care (retired long time ago) and placed abused children in foster care homes. I think she strongly disagree with you.
In fact, some of them even came to our family company and gave her flowers ten years after and thanked her. At the time they where very angry at her, threats and so on but with time they actually managed to get rid of the drugs and straighten up their life. In the end they where very thankful for and realised how wrong they where.
@@l1mi13 I don't think you understood what I meant, behind each broken child was a drug addicted parent, ussually the mother.
@Perturbed Atheist But do these mythical people exist? I know many upper middle class families where the parents use drugs and still maintain a shallow veneer of respectability, but they are not great parents.
Ok so I agree that these substances should be legal, mostly on libertarian grounds. But when you ask the question ‘why is alcohol legal but cocaine isn’t’, I’m sorry but ‘coz captalizm’ isn’t going to cut it. I expected something better from a professor. You’re telling me, deadly seriously, that there isn’t enough money in coke for it to have every bit as powerful a lobby? I’m not buying it, I’m sorry.
Good and interesting interview overall though!
i first saw Carl on the internet-famous Bill O'Reilly video (your numbers are wrong!) - if you want to understand drug issues better, then this is the man to listen to
🤡
15:28
hmmm his answer to this question.... again he seems to be living in some kind of utopia or seems to think living in a utopia is possible.
In that last question... he has administered drugs in laboratory situations to people and reckons they're happier and treat people better?
Than may well be the case in the laboratory... but real life experience and statistics easily paints a different picture.
Ask any A&E department on a Friday or Saturday night.
And same with this question.... addiction will always be a huge problem because we don't now and won't ever live in an ideal society.
I'm finding this guy really frustrating to listen to!
Humanity is a broken species, I'm guessing we were created this way for a reason. We suffer with anxiety, existential angst, depression, all kinds of problems related to unhealed trauma, especially unrecognized childhood trauma. We need something to take the edge off our suffering, at least sometimes. Dr. Carl Hart might not have perfect solutions, but his agenda seems to come from a place of good intention. Unlike some of the self serving psychopaths who maintain the current, cruel state of affairs in the majority of the world, maintaining laws which line certain pockets while harming innocent people who are just trying to find a little relief. You just have to 'follow the money' to see what is behind almost every kind of control, mandate or regulation in this world.... and drug laws are no different.
Drugs make anxiety worse in the long run.
really disappointed by a lot of the comments on this, DR carl is erudite, informed, compassionate and able to break down his arguments into accessible examples, so gratefull for this excellent interview on a subject it is so depressing to be still arguing about in 2022 :)
Agreed %100, and it's too bad people don't read the book.
@@aaronwatter he had every chance to give just a few solid examples of his "research" (which presumably has been replicated, otherwise is more junk psych), but failed to do so. Maybe he was trippin'
I have to agree with Dr. Hart on 100% of his points
I invented an anti drug abuse vaccine. I’d love to talk to Dr Hart
The people who thieve, or behave obnoxiously, violently, aggressively, etc., while under the influence of alcohol, cocaine, meth, or pcp, to name the main culprits, do so because of their personality, not because they have taken a drug.
The drug definitely plays a role in increasing violence. Drugs like PCP & meth literally causes manic dissociation, people have done fucked up acts under the influence
Probably both to be honest
your right but in the same way that the majority of people only have hookups and one night stands while under the influence of a substance. Drugs lower inhabitions allowing the drug user more easilly to say fuck it, lets do this. It's why they used to give soldiers alcohol in war. After 1 bottle of whiskey a squad were much more willing to rationalize going to their death.
@@thecolumbopause4961 They gave them more than just alcohol, lol.
@@thecolumbopause4961 Also, what closeted little bubble do you live in where people only have casual sex when on drugs?
After 50 odd years of addiction I can say I’ve had a good life.
We need more people like you to speak up (assuming you're not completely trolling us lol).
@@aaronwatter so 50 years of having no control over your cravings for an illicit psychoactive substance is ok, if the drug addicted simply assert that life is good (while permanently high). Gotcha. Sound logic.
@@svengali5415 you obviously don’t know much about drugs and that’s ok.in my 50 odd years as an addiction i was not out of my head all the time addiction is not like that,we are not all the same.i tried drugs and liked it and I still do at 73 thats just me
@@svengali5415 I don't know about "50 years of having no control over cravings". I only have about the past 25 years experience using opioids and many other drugs nearly without issue - including not being "permanently high", that's kind of silly - All while being a responsible and contributing member of my community (like most people who use drugs). Weird, huh?
Thank you so much all of you. I have been a huge fan of Dr. Hart for years. 💖 Finally an evidence based, realist scientist talking about this.
1 million thumbs up for Carl Hart.
No thank you
Critical Race Theory in motion
This is by far the most intelligent and interesting discussion of drugs that ive heard in many years. Superb!
I don't believe you. I think you are trying to convince yourself of that because Hart says things you want to believe.
@@ajb7786 i have zero interest in taking drugs but think the current approach is not working. You can buy drugs anywhere in the west practically 24/7
I disagree. Drinking wasn’t “a problem” for me, til I lost my son. Yes the alcohol numbed me which helped with the shock. And I drenched myself in it every day for a couple years. Eventually you have to taper, or stop though. And depression /grief is quicksand. LUCKily I had a family member who read the riot act. Facing problems sober is way more effective.
@Perturbed Atheist thank you very much :)
Unless I misunderstand where your disagreement with dr. Hart lies, I think you’re making his point. He’s arguing that it’s internal issues themselves and not the substance itself that lead people to abuse and misuse
U just made his point.
So you agree with him then, alcohol wasn't the problem was it. It was environmental factors for you. Sincere respect to yourself for coming out the other side of what must have been an awful time for you.
Drinking is very much a problem for those who live with an alcoholic though. An alcoholic mother for instance.