第 233 期·中文精讀

卡爾·哈特:海洛因、可卡因、MDMA、酒精與毒品在社會中的角色

Carl Hart: Heroin, Cocaine, MDMA, Alcohol & the Role of Drugs in Society

神經科學家結合研究與親身經歷,討論成癮、毒品政策與去罪化的爭議。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

哥倫比亞大學心理學系系主任,在自己的書裡寫下了這樣一句話:我當系主任那三年,對健康的損害遠超過我的毒品使用。

說這話的人叫卡爾·哈特(Carl Hart),哥倫比亞大學心理學和精神病學教授,2016 到 2019 年擔任心理學系系主任。他在新書《Drug Use for Grownups》(成年人的毒品使用)裡公開承認,自己在私生活中使用海洛因、可卡因、MDMA、大麻,以及他研究清單上的大部分藥物。

Lex Fridman 在節目開場就問了一個最直接的問題:用海洛因是什麼感覺?身體會發生什麼?頭腦裡會發生什麼?

哈特把這個問題原樣扔了回來:「這就像問你,性高潮在身體和頭腦裡是什麼感覺?」

在他看來,這個問法從一開始就問偏了。

把藥物體驗簡化成神經化學,漏掉了一半變數

Lex 換了個角度接著問:那能不能從生物學層面講講,這些藥物讓大腦經歷了什麼?

哈特的回答點出了一個根深蒂固的思維習慣:人們總把生物學當成藥物效應的唯一決定因素,而事實從來不這麼運轉。

你可以服用 MDMA,然後經歷一段糟糕透頂的時光,變得疑神疑鬼。你也可以在合適的條件下服用同一種藥,那會變成你人生中最美好的時刻之一。藥物效應需要環境,需要那個「籠子」。沒有籠子,你就得不到完整的效應。(卡爾·哈特)

他自己就有過兩端體驗。MDMA 確實改善了他好幾段人際關係,但他也經歷過不愉快的時刻,原因是當時一起玩的人他不熟,彼此不信任。同一分子,兩種結果。

這套說法把「環境」這個詞撐得很大。Lex 追問得很細:環境指的是此刻待在你身邊的人,還是指你整個人生的心理軌跡?童年創傷、被擊碎的或者實現了的夢想、成功與否,這些算不算?

哈特把這個問題拆成了兩層。童年創傷如果已經被處理過,那它在當下就不那麼重要;如果沒處理過,在這個時刻被觸發,那它就變得極其關鍵。他拿自己舉例:54 歲,快 55 歲了,花了很多年搞清楚自己是誰,跟自己相處得不錯,知道給自己設限。

他知道自己需要健身、需要吃好、需要睡夠、需要待在信任的人中間。這些條件滿足,那一刻大機率是愉快的。如果沒睡好、沒健身、狀態不對,那就不會是愉快的時光。他做的所有準備,本質上是在把「當下的焦慮」這個變數壓到最低。

焦慮這個詞在後面會反覆出現。哈特認為,人們看到的許多藥物負面效應,源頭多半在情境,藥物本身誘導的焦慮只是少數。一個人如果不知道自己拿到的到底是什麼,擔心裡面摻了什麼,這份恐懼本身就夠顯著地改變體驗。知道劑量、知道純度,是減少傷害的第一步,也是拿到正面體驗的第一步。

他研究出來的結論,先推翻了他自己

哈特在書裡寫了一段自我剖白,值得完整引出來:

我發現,本書討論的藥物所產生的主要效應是正面的。無論討論的是大麻、可卡因、海洛因、甲基苯丙胺還是裸蓋菇素,結論都一樣。壓倒性地,使用者報告自己變得更利他、更有共情、更愉悅、更專注、更感恩、更平靜。他們還報告了社互動動的改善、更強的目標感和意義感,以及性親密和性表現的提升。這一組發現挑戰了我原本對藥物及其效應的信念。我曾被灌輸,要對藥物使用的負面效應保持偏見。(卡爾·哈特)

後面這半句很關鍵。寫下這段的人,在哥倫比亞大學做了二十多年藥物研究,屬於這個領域裡最不該被外行敘事影響的那一類。他自己承認,他曾經被那套敘事規訓過。

Lex 的困惑代表了很多人的困惑:迷幻蘑菇和大麻,公眾這幾年勉強接受了,可卡因、海洛因、冰毒呢?這些東西怎麼可能有正面效應?為什麼媒體和大眾的共識是,它們只會把糟糕的生活變得更糟,把好的生活毀掉?

哈特給了兩個層面的解釋。

操作層面很具體。想要提高獲得正面體驗的機率,有幾件事必須做到:責任先處理完,吃好睡好鍛鍊好,知道自己拿到的東西是什麼,把焦慮降下來。這套流程跟開車、跟進入一段親密關係之前的準備,沒有本質區別。

結構性層面是他更憤怒的部分。報道負面效應能賺錢。

他舉了一個具體例子。寫一篇關於阿片危機的報道,讓公眾群情激憤非常容易。你甚至不需要告訴讀者怎麼保護自己,不需要解釋人為什麼會死於過量。美國絕大多數過量死亡的真實原因是:人們拿到了被汙染的街頭毒品,或者在不知情的情況下把鎮靜劑混在一起服用,這種組合會放大呼吸抑制效應。這些資訊全都沒有出現在報道里。

「報紙只做一件事,讓整個群體恐懼。這能賺錢。」

電影和電視劇在教你怎麼看待毒品,而且教得很糟

哈特對影視作品的批評比一般人想象的更尖銳。他說寫電影和寫電視劇的人,關於毒品寫的東西大部分是胡扯。你在喜劇演員的段子裡說關於毒品最蠢的話,也會有人信。

他舉了《黑道家族》(The Sopranos)。

託尼這個角色的職業是殺人。當他貶低、羞辱自己的侄子克里斯托弗吸毒時,這部劇要你對託尼產生同情。我們同情一個剛剛殺了人的人,一個徹頭徹尾的壞人,因為吸毒的人在他眼裡是更壞的人。這就是這部劇希望你相信的東西。託尼是種族主義者,是殺人犯,我們同情他,但我們不同情任何吸毒的人。這他媽的太離譜了。(卡爾·哈特)

他順著這個邏輯把《疤面煞星》(Scarface)也講了一遍。那部電影的結局依賴美國觀眾對毒販的某個預設:這些人本質上是動物。最後動物因為吸了太多可卡因,在神志不清中把自己毀了。這個結局完成了一次規訓,你看,這就是下場。

Lex 有點招架不住,說自己很喜歡這些電影,請求別把它們從這個世界上拿走。哈特的回應很冷靜:他要的是讓編劇對現實更誠實一點。電影不用消失,只需要停止用懶惰的筆法塑造人物。

「你甚至不需要給這個角色做任何背景鋪陳。你把毒品扔進去,說一句『他是個毒販』,觀眾就以為自己懂了。編劇偷懶,也不做任何角色開發。」

成癮和藥物本身幾乎沒關係

這是哈特整套論點裡最核心,也最容易被誤讀的一句。

他解釋得很清楚:對於任何一種藥物,絕大多數使用者都不會發展成成癮。這句話順下來就有一層推論,既然大多數使用者沒成癮,那麼要解釋成癮這個現象,就必須把目光移到藥物之外。

DSM-5(美國精神醫學學會《精神障礙診斷與統計手冊》第五版)對物質使用障礙的判斷要求兩個基本條件:一是個體的心理社會功能出現紊亂,二是這個人因為這種紊亂而感到痛苦。兩條都滿足,才叫成癮。僅僅因為某人使用海洛因,不等於他是成癮者。

那成癮的來源是什麼?哈特列了一串。

有共病精神疾病的人,比如抑鬱、焦慮,這屬於個體內部的脆弱性,它會抬高成癮的機率。從小被堆上大量不切實際期待的人,也更容易出問題。責任感技能沒發展成熟的、心理上還停在某個年紀的人,一旦開始這類行為,也容易出問題。失業的人,工廠搬走的人,疫情中失去工作的人,原本在社群裡有地位、現在一無所有的人,這些人如果開始用某種藥物,可能是在尋找逃避。

Lex 在這裡插了一句自己的直覺:每種藥在生化層面都有自己的特性,有些藥在你需要逃避時,把你拽得更緊。

哈特當場打斷他:

你有什麼證據支援這句話?我沒有,因為根本沒有。人們說這種話,這就是問題的全部所在。(卡爾·哈特)

Lex 承認這是從自己有限的個人經驗裡推測出來的。哈特的回應是:這正是問題。我們有科學資料庫,不需要用個人感受來替代。「你解一道數學題的時候,不會希望有人說,我覺得是這樣。別管你怎麼感覺,資料說什麼?」

這段交鋒值得停留一下。它展示了哈特的方法論立場,也暴露了他的性格:他對「聽起來合理但缺乏證據」的說法幾乎是零容忍,哪怕這個說法來自一個善意的主持人,哪怕它在方向上對他有利。

緊接著他補了一句,說成癮確實可能不只是環境的產物。有些人有共病精神疾病,這是個體內部的;有些人被堆上不切實際的期待;有些人只是不成熟。這些都不能完全歸到外部環境。但他堅持的核心不變:藥物本身解釋不了成癮。

真正需要警惕的副作用,你大概沒聽說過

Lex 問得很實在:如果我想探索這些藥物,我該警惕什麼?成癮性?戒斷反應?哪一種最危險?

哈特按戒斷反應的危險程度排了個序,結論出人意料。

可卡因的戒斷症狀非常有限,幾乎觀察不到。甲基苯丙胺也一樣。海洛因的戒斷綜合徵確實不舒服,但不會要命。酒精的戒斷反應可以直接殺死你。苯二氮䓬類藥物和酒精在藥理上親緣很近,戒斷同樣可能致死。

然後是那句最讓主持人為難的話:海洛因使用者最常見、最被忽視的健康問題,是便秘。長期使用會讓腸道蠕動變慢,便秘加重,這對整體健康不利。這個社會從來不談這件事。

除便秘之外,真正的風險來自別處:拿到被汙染的街頭毒品;經驗不足的人把海洛因和其他鎮靜劑混用。至於安非他命類,全部都會破壞睡眠和進食,而這兩件事對維持人的生命至關重要。

「我們不談這些,因為它不如成癮那套胡說八道來得刺激。」

Lex 的反應很坦誠:明知道應該用同樣的標準去問酒精,但聽到「可卡因要注意的是別在睡前吃」「海洛因要注意的是便秘」,還是很難不覺得荒謬。哈特順著這個思路給出了具體的用藥教育應該長什麼樣:可卡因是興奮劑,別在睡前用,要保證睡眠時長,第二天還得起床;它也會抑制食慾,沒安非他命那麼強,但足夠影響營養攝入。這些知識必須系統性地教,不能把人往水裡一扔就完事。

合法化聽起來激進,方案其實很具體

哈特的主張跟「所有毒品隨便拿」差得很遠。他說的是:人們真正會去尋求的那些藥物,大麻、MDMA、可卡因、海洛因,以及一部分迷幻劑,應該合法監管並對成年人開放。

開放不等於放任。他給出的具體設計是這樣的:

  • 設定年齡門檻,可能還有其他准入要求
  • 像對待酒精一樣控制單位劑量,瓶子裡裝的酒足以殺死你,但我們不這麼裝
  • 不銷售靜脈注射製劑,給藥途徑限定在口服和鼻吸

他的邏輯很樸素:我們有技術,也有知識,可以做減害設計,只是現在選擇不做。

而在合法化之前,第一步該做什麼?哈特給了一個清單,按順序排:

  1. 不再因為毒品逮捕任何人
  2. 釋放所有因毒品入獄的人
  3. 清除他們的犯罪記錄
  4. 建立一套讓負責任的成年人可以合法獲取這些物質的系統
  5. 配一套相應的教育體系,教人怎麼用

毒品戰爭裡,輸的人很慘,贏的人賺翻了

Lex 問:毒品戰爭對這個世界是淨正面還是淨負面?

哈特的回答是:看你在哪個世界裡。

受益者名單他念了一長串:執法部門、媒體、寫那些胡扯電視劇的編劇、《黑道家族》《火線》這類劇集的製作方、治療行業裡的很多人、做尿液檢測的公司、監獄運營方、向囚犯收高額電話費的通訊公司、監獄周邊供家屬住宿的酒店和餐館。「他們賺得像強盜,而我們作為一個社會整體在被宰。」

政客也在這份名單上。他的觀察是,民主黨和共和黨在毒品議題上的立場其實是一樣的,所以兩邊都能從這個系統裡獲益。這就是它一直持續下去的原因。

Lex 在這裡做了一次區分,問哈特的批評物件到底是警察,還是社會要求警察去做的事。哈特接得很乾脆:他當過四年兵,執行命令的時候是無知的,以為自己在做正確的事。街上那些警察也一樣,他們在執行命令。他真正的矛頭指向權力結構,指向那些下命令的人,也指向在電視上扮演警察、把警察形象神聖化的那些人。「這種把警察英雄化的影像,對一個民主社會是有害的。」

他把這套邏輯延伸到了地理上。他去過北愛爾蘭,那裡的人經歷了幾十年的衝突;他去過西弗吉尼亞,那裡的水被汙染,工廠搬走了,人們走投無路。他在這些地方看到的是同一件事:被政客欺騙、被忽視的人,被告知問題出在毒品上。政客因此不必把工作機會帶回來,不必保證乾淨飲用水。

北愛爾蘭的那些人,和阿巴拉契亞的那些人是連在一起的,和布朗斯維爾的人是連在一起的,和聖保羅的人是連在一起的,和菲律賓的人是連在一起的。他們因為同一個原因在受苦。這也是我對這件事感受如此強烈的原因,因為我知道有些人的工資,是建立在壓制和折磨另一些人之上的。(卡爾·哈特)

他有一句話把這件事說透了:如果你想讓一個問題永遠得不到解決,就把它交給軍隊或者警察。

他為什麼敢說

Lex 問了一個很難回答的問題:你在哥倫比亞大學,有職位,有名聲,說這些話需要膽量。這份膽量從哪來?對那些想挑戰主流共識、但有點害怕的人,你有什麼建議?

哈特先給了最實際的一條:先成為你所在領域裡真正懂行的那個人。

人們在看我倡導這個立場的時候,背後是三十年的科學。如果我不懂自己在說什麼,我早就被掃地出門了。(卡爾·哈特)

然後才談到心理層面:「一旦你知道,你就無法不知道。所以我必須照鏡子。照鏡子的時候,我得面對自己:我活得誠實嗎?如果我不能面對自己,我在這裡做什麼?」

播客裡還有一段對話,可能是整期節目裡最沉重的地方。Lex 提到一個現象:有些藥物會把你帶到一個非常樂觀的位置,讓你對人類、對我們的同類充滿希望,讓你想要盡力去貢獻,因為你看見了我們作為一個社會可以成為什麼樣子。然後你回來,撞上阻力,撞上大量的人不願意變好。

哈特接住了這個話題,並且把它推到了更遠的地方。如果你知道人可以更好,而他們拒絕變好,那你作為知道這件事的人,為什麼還要留在這裡?

「我當然希望生活有意義。我現在非常享受我的生活。但我剛從日內瓦回來,整個夏天在歐洲,在一個能讓你作為負責任的成年人享受自己的地方。那讓我能夠減壓。回到這裡,你必須準備好去戰鬥。而我不想再戰鬥了。我只想能夠幫助一個社會、幫助人們。所以我必須在歐洲留一個地方,去減壓,然後回來,才能忍受這裡的狀況。」

這段話放在整期節目的語境裡,是他所有論點的一個情感註腳。他花了三十年做研究、寫書、公開承認自己用藥、被同行質疑、被媒體曲解,換來的不是社會變好,是需要在大西洋兩岸來回飛行以維持心理平衡。

祖母教他的那件事,成了他所有研究的底色

哈特在邁阿密長大,父母在他六七歲時分開,他去和祖母住。他談到祖母時給的答案很簡短:她教他批判性思考,教他自給自足,教他睜大眼睛,提防「okie doke」(騙局、花招)。

「整個毒品這件事,說到底就是 okie doke。歸根結底就是這麼簡單。我們所有人都很像,都在努力過好自己的日子,努力照顧好孩子,都想給孩子最好的。但不知怎麼,我們被弄得相信我們在這件事上是不一樣的。可我們本質上是一樣的。」

順著這個邏輯,他提出了那個反問:人們追求愉悅、追求感覺好一點,這件事為什麼不值得慶祝?為什麼反而要被貶低?「如果我感覺更好,我更有可能善待你。」

這可能是他整本書最樸素的論證。愉悅和道德不衝突,一個感覺良好的人更可能成為好的鄰居、好的同事、好的家人。把追求愉悅這件事汙名化,代價是社會整體變得更糟。

Lex 追問:那迷幻劑可以被看作療愈,海洛因為什麼不可以?他認識的人裡,有人做完死藤水(ayahuasca)之後,覺得解決了困擾多年的問題,別的方式都做不到。哈特的反問是:如果死藤水、裸蓋菇素能做到,為什麼海洛因不能對某個人做到?為什麼可卡因不能?為什麼 MDMA 不能?

Lex 半開玩笑地頂了一句:那要是給海洛因也配一個薩滿呢。哈特沒有笑。這正是他的觀點。

對批評的正面回應

Lex 請他做一次正面替對手辯護,找出最有分量的反對意見。哈特承認了一種:有人批評他把藥物描繪得過於美好,呈現了一幅過於樂觀的畫面。他說自己不想造成這種印象,他在書裡明確承認任何活動都存在潛在傷害,藥物也不例外。

但他的立場沒有動搖:益處遠遠超過潛在的害處,而且我們有技術和資訊去把害處降到最低。他反對的是另一套做法,只呈現負面效應,並指望這能保護人們。

關於治療,他也補了一層區分。戒斷方案是相對標準化的,酒精戒斷、苯二氮䓬戒斷,多數醫生遵循的是同一套流程。真正混亂的是成癮本身的治療,也就是 DSM 裡「物質使用障礙」這個整體。「很多方法都是垃圾。」

他對匿名戒酒會(AA)的評價很微妙。他不認為 AA 是一種他會推薦給親屬的「治療」,因為「他們對藥物瞭解不多」。但他承認 AA 提供了一個社交群體、一群同伴,這一點有價值,甚至比很多收費昂貴的治療機構做得更好。

我們的社會里,法官會判人必須去 AA。你在開玩笑嗎?這種事能被允許發生,是因為我們把毒品當成道德失敗,把成癮當成道德失敗。於是任何一個白痴都可以提供治療。(卡爾·哈特)

Lex 在這裡補了一個觀察:很多成癮治療之所以漫長到像一輩子,恰恰是因為那些社群提供的其實是環境支援,而環境才是問題所在。哈特同意這個方向,只是把話說得更直接:對大多數人來說,藥物相關問題的大部分根源在環境。

關於自由,以及自由要付的賬

節目裡有一段對話繞到了自由這個更大的題目上。Lex 提出了一個誠實的擔憂:當你說藥物可以負責任地使用、而且大多數效應是正面的,那些心理狀態不好、環境糟糕的人,會不會把這當成一個許可證,用它來替代真正該做的事,也就是先修好自己、修好環境?

哈特的回答沒有繞:這些人本來就能拿到酒精。

我們生活在一個叫美國的國家,我們的《獨立宣言》說,我們有權按自己想要的方式生活,只要不阻礙別人做同樣的事。但讓我覺得不可思議的是,我們多麼努力地試圖控制別人的行為。(卡爾·哈特)

他把這本書的落點定在自由上。自由伴隨著巨大的責任。他對這句話的理解很具體:我對我的鄰居、我的兄弟負有責任,我不能阻礙他們的自由。有些人以為自己的自由可以凌駕於所有人的自由之上,這是錯的。

「我是一個公民,我對你負有責任,我們在這件事上是共同體。」他說這就是他想在書裡提醒人們的東西,而很多人選擇性地忽略了這一層。

這也是為什麼他對「個人選擇」這個說法保持著一種警惕。合法的藥物、負責任的使用,前提是使用者確實承擔了他對周圍人的那份責任。一個只顧自己愉悅、把孩子扔在一邊、把賬單堆到桌上不管的人,不叫自由,叫轉嫁成本。

回到他前面那段自述:他之所以能在用藥時完全沉浸在當下,不去想沒付的賬單、忘了給孩子做的事,恰恰是因為那些事全都被處理完了。那種無憂無慮的狀態有價錢,他用日常的責任感把它買了下來。

他給年輕人的建議,跟「追隨激情」不太一樣

Lex 問他:一個高中生或者大學生,正在想自己的職業、想怎麼過一種自己會感到驕傲的生活,你會給什麼建議?

哈特的答案順序很特別。他沒有先說「找到你熱愛的事」,而是先說:不管你選了什麼職業,先把自己變成這個領域裡真正懂行的人。

人們看到我在倡導這個立場,背後是三十年的科學。相信我,如果我不懂自己的東西,我早就被掃地出門了。(卡爾·哈特)

這個順序值得琢磨。他後面確實說了要鼓勵人們去做讓自己快樂的事,因為社會里快樂的人越多,所有人過得越好。但在他自己的經驗裡,專業能力是發言權的入場券。沒有它,你說的話再對,也只會被當成噪音處理掉。

他對「不懂裝懂的人佔據權力位置」這件事的厭惡,幾乎貫穿了整期對話。「外面有太多人在裝模作樣,他們不懂自己的手藝,他們不是自己聲稱要服務的那些人的助力。這是個問題。當這樣的人在權力位置上有相當數量的時候,你的社會會崩掉。」

那要不要讀博?Lex 問。哈特的回答是「不一定」,他不推薦自己的孩子走這條路。他承認科學界可以是一個非常小心眼的空間,但那是我當時唯一能走的路,所以我必須走。

一個在哥倫比亞大學當系主任的人,對自己賴以獲得話語權的這套體系,評價並不浪漫。這種誠實挺少見。

關於意義,他的回答裡沒有一句漂亮話

Lex 問了一個大而無當的問題:人生有意義嗎?意義是什麼?

哈特的回答是:「我當然希望它有。我確實在按它有意義的方式生活。」

然後他講了一件很具體的事。他剛從日內瓦回來,整個夏天在歐洲度過,在一個更文明、能讓負責任的成年人享受自己的地方。那讓他能夠減壓。而回到美國這件事的性質是:你必須準備好去戰鬥。

「我不想再戰鬥了。我只想幫助一個社會和這裡的人。所以我必須在歐洲留一個地方去減壓,然後回來,才能忍受這裡的狀況。」

Lex 追問:你是不是其實有點享受這場戰鬥?

「不,我真的累了。你想,我是在試圖幫人們看見他們可以怎樣快樂,然後人們在跟我對抗。『我不想快樂,我想無知,別管我。』這就是人們在說的話。」

那減壓的時候快樂的來源是什麼?他答得很直接:MDMA 是一個來源,還有法律不會來找你麻煩的地方,比如歐洲,在那裡你能感到真正的自由。海洛因如果是一個人待著、在自己的腦子裡,也可以是一個不錯的空間,但和其他人在一起時,MDMA 更好。

再往下就是那些普通的東西了:好朋友、好吃的、家人、愛。

一個把辯論推到最前沿的人,最後給出的幸福清單樸素到近乎無聊。但考慮到他前面的整套論證,這份樸素是自洽的:藥物提供的是一個空間,生活本身還得靠別的東西撐起來。

嘻哈、吉爾·斯科特-赫倫,以及「他們在這件事上也搞錯了」

Lex 說這是本期最難的問題:誰是史上最偉大的嘻哈藝術家?

哈特的回答很有意思,他先否定了自己的資格。「我不知道我有沒有資格做這個判斷。」然後他給出的名字是吉爾·斯科特-赫倫(Gil Scott-Heron),被很多人看作嘻哈的父輩之一,也是他個人的最愛。接著是 Public Enemy 的 Chuck D。

但緊接著他說了一句很哈特的話:即便是 Public Enemy,即便是吉爾·斯科特-赫倫,他們在毒品這件事上也搞錯了。

「但他們做的其他那麼多好事,幫助我成長為一個更好的人。」

這句話裡有他看待人的基本方式:一個人可以在某件事上錯得很離譜,同時在另一些事上給了你巨大的幫助。這兩件事同時成立,不需要互相抵消。他對《黑道家族》是這個態度,對 Public Enemy 也是這個態度,對羅伯特·約翰遜那個「把靈魂賣給魔鬼換吉他技巧」的傳說同樣如此。

順帶說,那個傳說正是他認定的「我們講給孩子聽的童話」。你吃了那顆藥,你能做出好東西,但你得為此付出代價。在他看來,這跟匹諾曹說謊鼻子會變長屬於同一個類別。

「你可以說關於毒品最蠢的話,然後被人相信。」這是他反覆回到的一句判斷。而這套童話的代價很實在,它變成了法律,變成了警力,變成了監獄裡的人。

詹姆斯·鮑德溫那句話,以及它對他的意義

在書的後記裡,哈特引用了詹姆斯·鮑德溫(James Baldwin):你無法知道在這段旅程中你會發現什麼,你會拿你發現的東西做什麼,或者你發現的東西會對你做什麼。

Lex 用這句話問他:藥物使用、或者對藥物的研究,把你變成了一個什麼樣的人?

哈特的回答分兩層。第一層是神經化學的:他所知道的關於大腦的一切,都是因為對藥物的興趣才學到的。多巴胺神經元、去甲腎上腺素神經元、各種神經傳遞過程,藥物是他進入這些知識的工具。

第二層是人的層面。他說藥物讓他學會了對自己和別人更寬容,學會了更多的共情,也讓他看到了我們這個物種可以成為什麼樣子。

「我學到的是如何對別人、對自己更寬容,也學到了大量的共情,這是藥物使用的結果。就像我前面說的,我在學習我們作為一個物種可以是什麼樣子,那相當不可思議。」

Lex 接了一段自己的理解:藥物有一種特性,把你從自己的身體裡帶出來,讓你從第三人稱視角評估自己。冥想也是這樣,一次高質量的訓練也是這樣,它們訓練的是同一塊腦區,讓你不把自己看得那麼重,然後你才有能力寬恕自己、寬恕別人。

這個類比哈特沒有反駁,只是把它放回了具體情境:不同的藥物是用不同的方式做到這件事的。

他說過的最重的一句話,其實關於死亡

節目快結束時,Lex 提出了一個他思考了很久的角度:有些藥物能把你帶到一個地方,讓你對人類、對我們的同類感到極度樂觀,讓你想盡力貢獻,因為你看見了我們作為一個社會可以成為什麼。然後你回來,撞上阻力,撞上大量的人不願意變好。

「如果你知道人可以更好,而他們拒絕變好,那你作為知道這件事的人,為什麼還要留在這裡?」

整期節目裡,只有這一段沒有被反駁、也沒有被資料化。哈特沒有把它推回科學,他只是接了。

這也解釋了他為什麼會對那些被毒品敘事掩蓋的死亡如此憤怒。死於藥物本身的人只是其中一部分,更多人死於「政客用毒品當替罪羊,從而不必解決真正問題」。西弗吉尼亞的水被汙染了,工廠搬走了,人走投無路,然後被告知罪魁禍首是毒品。政客因此不必把工作帶回來,不必保證乾淨的飲用水。

「如果你想讓一個問題永遠得不到解決,就把它交給軍隊或者警察。」

這句話的邏輯值得單獨拎出來:把一個問題重新定義成治安問題,你就同時獲得兩個好處。第一,你看起來在行動。第二,你永遠不用去碰它的真正原因,因為治安問題永遠不會被徹底解決。

他到底在賭什麼

Lex 說了一句有點天真的話:我總願意相信真相會贏,真相是最好的敘事。

哈特說他也相信。「這正是我出來、讓自己承受這些批評的原因。但我也可能是錯的。不過我必須以它是真的這種方式生活,否則我就沒有希望了,那我為什麼還在這裡?」

這句話點出了他整個處境的底色。他沒指望公眾很快接受他的觀點,他賭的是真相有長期優勢,而為了讓自己撐到那一天,他必須以這個信念過日子。

代價是真實的。要在大西洋兩岸來回飛,要在歐洲留一個能喘氣的地方,要在每次回來時重新武裝自己去面對戰鬥。一個 55 歲、在常春藤任教、寫了三本書的人,他的生活形態被這件事塑造成了這樣。

而他給出的理由,追到最後是很小的一件事。一個在邁阿密長大的孩子,父母在他六七歲時分開,跟著祖母過。祖母教他自給自足,教他批判性思考,教他睜大眼睛提防騙局。

「整個毒品這件事,說到底就是 okie doke。」

他說我們所有人都很像,都想把日子過好,都想給孩子最好的。但不知怎麼,我們被弄得相信我們在這件事上彼此不同。

「當我感覺更好的時候,我更有可能善待你。」

這大概是整期對話裡最不像科學、也最難被資料反駁的一句話。

如果你聽完想對自己做點什麼

卡爾·哈特的很多主張短期內不會變成政策,但這期對話裡有相當一部分內容,不需要任何立法就可以用上。

  • 把「藥物」和「非法藥物」這兩個概念拆開。酒精和尼古丁是藥物,咖啡因是藥物,它們的風險曲線和你聽說的那些「硬毒品」並不在同一條判斷標準上。當你意識到自己已經在使用某些藥物、並且用得還不錯,你對其他藥物的很多恐懼會被重新校準。
  • 遇到任何關於藥物效應的說法,先問一句「資料在哪裡」。這期節目裡最有價值的一個動作,是哈特打斷主持人那句「有些藥把你拽得更緊」,回了一句「你有什麼證據」。同樣的追問也可以用在你看到的每一條毒品新聞上:它告訴你人為什麼會死嗎?它告訴你怎樣才能不死嗎?如果都沒有,那它只是在製造恐懼。
  • 評估任何一次改變意識狀態的體驗,把環境當成一半的變數。睡眠、飲食、運動、賬單是否處理完、身邊的人是否值得信任,這些條件幾乎決定了體驗的走向。這是藥理層面的變數,跟道德勸告無關。焦慮本身就是很多負面效應的來源,而焦慮大多來自情境,跟分子關係不大。
  • 先在你的領域裡做到真正懂行,再去挑戰共識。這是哈特給出的最實用的一條建議,也是他所有發言權的來源。三十年的科學攢出的觀點,和一時興起的觀點,在公共討論裡得到的待遇完全不同。
  • 注意那些被毒品敘事掩蓋的真實問題。當你看到某個社群、某個地區、某個群體被反覆描述成「毒品氾濫」的時候,多問一句:這裡還有什麼別的事正在發生?工廠去哪了?水乾淨嗎?工作還在嗎?把問題定義成毒品問題,往往正是為了讓真正的問題繼續不被解決。
  • 追求愉悅這件事本身,不需要向誰道歉。這話聽起來像是在為放縱找理由,但哈特的論證方向恰好相反:一個感覺更好的人更可能善待別人。真正該被追問的是你有沒有處理好自己對周圍人的那份責任,有沒有在追求愉悅的同時把成本轉嫁給別人。
  • 別把「成癮」當成一個關於藥物的標籤。DSM-5 要求兩條同時成立:心理社會功能出現紊亂,並且本人因為這種紊亂感到痛苦。用這兩條去對照身邊那些被隨口稱作「上癮」的行為,很多判斷會立刻鬆動。每天喝咖啡、每晚刷手機、每週打十幾個小時遊戲,這些行為在道德層面被討論的頻率,和它們在臨床層面的嚴重程度,往往成反比。
  • 小心那些只講恐懼、不講方法的報道。哈特舉的例子值得記住:美國絕大多數過量死亡源於被汙染的街頭毒品,或者不知情地把鎮靜劑混用。一篇報道如果只說「危機」「死亡人數」,卻不提這兩件事,它提供的是情緒,資訊含量接近於零。你可以用這個標準去篩你每天讀到的所有健康類新聞。

節目最後,Lex 引用了弗蘭克·扎帕(Frank Zappa)的一句話作為收尾。這句話放在這期對話之後,幾乎像是給整場辯論寫的一句判詞:毒品本身不是壞的,毒品是一種化合物。問題出現在,服用毒品的人把它當成了可以表現得像個混蛋的許可證。

哈特大概會點頭同意前半句,然後對後半句補一句自己的版本:要教的東西從來都只有一件,讓人學會不做那個混蛋。

整期節目裡,Lex 有幾次明顯被逼到了牆角。他說不清自己為什麼覺得可卡因危險,只能承認那來自文化環境的耳濡目染;他想為「有些藥把你拽得更緊」辯護,結果被一句「你有什麼證據」堵回去;他喜歡《疤面煞星》,卻沒法反駁那部電影確實在利用觀眾對毒販的預設。

這些卡殼的時刻比任何結論都更有說服力。它們暴露了一件事:大多數人對毒品的判斷,來源是故事,資料在其中佔的比重小得可憐。

哈特要做的,是把這些故事一條條拆開,擺到檯面上,問三句話:這個故事有證據嗎?誰從這個故事裡獲利?誰為這個故事付代價?

他自己給出的答案很具體。獲利的是執法部門、媒體、編劇、治療機構、監獄、檢測公司、政客。付代價的是被逮捕的人、被關進去的人、被汙染的水源和搬走的工廠留下的那些社群,還有那些因為拿到摻了東西的毒品而死去、事後被告知「是毒品害死了他」的人。

至於他自己,一個 55 歲、在常春藤任教、本可以安穩做到退休的人,選擇把這個答案說出口,代價是要在歐洲留一個能喘氣的地方,然後一次次回來面對戰鬥。

他說他累了。這句話在節目裡出現了不止一次。

但他還是在說。

文稿來自公開 Kaggle 資料集(rajneesh231/lex-fridman-podcast-transcript),為早期自動轉錄存檔,可能存在識別錯誤。
The following is a conversation with Carl Hart, department chair and professor of psychology at Columbia University. He's the author of several books on the topic of drugs, including his most recent, called Drug Use for Grownups, that challenges us to, quote, use empirical evidence to guide public policy even if it makes us uncomfortable. His research on drugs, including hard drugs, like heroin and cocaine, challenges much of what we think we know about drugs and their role in society. His main thesis is that drug addiction has less to do with the drugs themselves and more to do with cooccurring psychiatric disorders, such as depression and schizophrenia, and socioeconomic factors, such as unemployment, underemployment, and resource deprivation within the community. In addition, he believes that we should legalize all drugs so that if people choose to use them, they could do so responsibly and openly and get help if needed in a controlled, safe environment. His ideas are controversial, but are fundamentally grounded in empirical data and rigorous scientific studies. I don't know if his conclusions are right, but they are at least worth thinking about. So I ask that you consider these ideas with an open mind and as always, make sure you exercise your critical thinking skills in making decisions about substances you put in your body. You are a free thinking being, the main character, if you will, the hero in a story that's being written by you. So at the end of the day, you are responsible for the choices you make. So choose wisely. This is the Lex Friedman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, here's my conversation with Carl Hart. I think it is bold and powerful to admit to using in your private life the drugs that you study in your research, including heroin and cocaine. So let me ask, what is the experience of taking heroin like? What happens to the body? What happens to the mind when you take it? Well, you know, I take MDMA, cannabis, and all the rest of these drugs too. I've tried those drugs. The experience in the body and the mind, I don't really know what people wanna know in that regard. It's like saying, what is the experience of having an orgasm in the body and the mind? Or some other sort of event that you really enjoy. So I don't really know what people... Is that what poetry is for, for describing these kinds of experiences? I mean, I guess, given MDMA, given psilocybin, in the full context of that, maybe it's more useful to say, what are the differences in experiences that your mind goes through? Like chemically, biologically. So like keeping it strictly to sort of the biology of it versus the full environmental human experience. Yeah, see, this is a mistake that people make all the time. They try to act as if biology is the only determinant of drug effects. And that's just not how it works. You need the environment. You need the cage, as they say. If you don't have the cage, you don't get the full extent of the effects. And so like you can take MDMA and have an awful time. You can have a time in which you get paranoid and so forth. And then you can take that drug under the right conditions and it just be like one of the best moments you've ever had. It certainly enhanced a number of my relationships. But I've also had some times with MDMA that haven't been so lovely. When the people who you are hanging out with, you don't know them, you're distrustful and all of those kinds of things. So it's important to put context in it. Now we can talk about drugs at a biochemical level, at a biological level. And we kind of do that in this country with this fascination with neuroscience. And that's an inappropriate kind of fascination in the way we talk about it. So we can talk about opioids and then we can talk about endogenous opioid system in the brain. We can talk about dopamine and other sort of monoamine transmitters and what opioids are doing to them. And we can do the same thing with MDMA. And we won't be any closer to understanding the sort of experience that is induced by these drugs. Certainly the experience that we all seek. You know what I'm saying? So getting a positive experience or getting a negative experience is strongly defined by the environment. Strongly dependent upon it. But the environment is a very, it's a short word that can describe a lot of things. So would you say the environment is important or the people where you are currently in your life? Or is it also dependent on the full trajectory of your psychology of your life experiences of your parents or the people you came up with of the trauma you've experienced of the hopes and dreams that were crushed or not or the opposite or the success levels or all those things. Like what are the interesting sort of landscape of experiences that contribute to how you actually feel when you take a drug? Right on. So all of those things are important. But you know, like if someone had trauma in childhood and they did the work and they dealt with it that's not so important in this case. But if they didn't deal with it and that trauma is being triggered in that event in that moment, then it's important. But let's just take somebody like me. I'm 54 years old. I'll be 55 this month actually. And you know, I've done a lot of work in terms of figuring out who I am and I'm comfortable with myself. And I know how to set limits for whatever it is I'm doing. And so I know I need to work out. I know I need to eat well. I know I need to sleep well. I know I need to be in an environment with people within my trust. And then if all of those things are met, oh, it's likely to be a good time. You know what I'm saying? But if I haven't slept, if I haven't worked out, if I don't feel good, it won't be a good time. But I try and be responsible and take care of my eating habits, sleeping habits, make sure my responsibilities are taken care of. And so when I'm in that moment, I just enjoy that moment. I'm there. I'm not thinking about a bill that I didn't pay. I'm not thinking about, oh, I forgot to do this for my kid. I'm not thinking about that because all of those things are taken care of. If they're not taken care of, it will impact the experience and it may negatively impact the experience. Well, that is the counterintuitive, even controversial finding from your recent book. So we should kind of, I know it seems obvious to you, but I think a lot of people hearing this would think it's quite non obvious. So in your new book, Drug Use for Grownups, you write for the finding section. I discovered that the predominant effects produced by the drugs discussed in this book are positive. It didn't matter whether the drug in question was cannabis, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, or psilocybin. Overwhelmingly, consumers expressed feeling more altruistic, empathetic, euphoric, focused, grateful, and tranquil. They also experienced enhanced social interactions, a great sense of purpose and meaning, and increased sexual intimacy and performance. This constellation of findings challenged my original beliefs about drugs and their effects. I had been indoctrinated to be biased toward the negative effects of drug use. But over the past two plus decades, I had gained a deeper, more nuanced understanding. These words are very counterintuitive to a lot of people. I think like you also mentioned in the book and elsewhere, people have come around to maybe psilocybin being one such drug, maybe cannabis being one such drug, but you also mentioned other drugs like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine. Can you just linger on this point? How do we get the positive effects of those drugs and why in the media, and the general conception we have of these drugs is that they were going to make a bad life worse or ruin a good life? Well, so your first question was, how do we harness the positive effects? How do we increase the likelihood of getting the positive effects? Again, like I said, we wanna make sure that people are responsible and they've handled their responsibilities, make sure they eat well, sleep well, exercise, all of those sorts of things play an important role. And also if they know exactly what they're getting and then they're not paranoid about, it's something contaminated in some adulterant in my drug. So you wanna make sure you know exactly what you have. Once you satisfy those kinds of things, you understand the dose and potency, you understand all of those things to decrease any sort of anxiety you might have about the substance itself, it increases the likelihood that you will have a better time. So anxiety is a big one, you need to remove the anxiety. Anxiety is critical, it's huge. Many of the negative effects that we see with drugs have to do with anxiety and not necessarily anxiety because a drug induced it, it's the anxiety that the situation induced a lot of times. And then you ask like, well, why does this sound counterintuitive? Why does the media report differently? Well, because there's money in reporting the negative effects almost exclusively. Think about writing a newspaper article. It's really easy to get the population all ginned up about something like an opioid crisis, overdoses, and you don't even have to tell people how to keep people safe if you're talking about overdose. You don't even have to say why people are dying from overdoses. Like overdoses in our country happen largely because people get contaminated drugs, because people are combining sedatives and they don't know that this enhances the respiratory depressing effects of drugs. They don't know. But when you read these newspaper articles, they don't say this. They don't say how to keep people safe. All they do is frighten the population. There's money in that. And then we think about people who write TV shows, the people who write movies. Most of the stuff written about drugs is just bullshit. I think about, I love going to watch comedians and the comedians when they talk about drugs, again, most of the things that they say about drugs is bullshit. I mean, you can say the stupidest things about drugs and be believed. You can write a movie and you don't even have to develop your characters. If you throw drugs into the mix, you say, oh, he's a drug dealer. You don't have to say anything about that person's background or about that person being developed as a character because the population think they know. And the writer is lazy and does not do any sort of development. Just think about any more. Oh, let's think about the Sopranos, for example. They have a new program coming out. So let's think about them for a second. The Sopranos is a show in which the lead character, Tony, kills people for a living. That's what he does, right? This character actually made a sympathetic for him when he is besmirching and denigrating his nephew, Christopher, for using a drug. And we feel sympathy for Tony, the character, who just killed somebody, who is a horrible person, but being a drug user is a worse person. That's what the show wants us to believe. Tony's a racist, murderer, all of these things, but we feel sympathy for him. But we don't feel sympathy for anyone who uses drugs. That's some crazy shit. I mean, and the American public buys into it. That is, that's wild to me, and that we all bought into this crap. And that's what we do in damn near everything that's in film, on television. And it's like, what's wrong with you people? So why aren't there not more stories of grownups using drugs? The full spectrum of drugs that we're talking about. Why isn't there? So we talked offline about Joe Rogan. He's somebody who started smoking weed later in life, which is an interesting story. Like when he's already very successful and he has a very interesting way of describing his experience with weed, that it was like enhancing just productivity. It actually, I think he says, like it increases anxiety a little bit in a way that was productive, like paranoia, not anxiety. And so that's an interesting story of an adult talking about the use of weed for productivity purposes. But you don't get those stories very often. Why? I think fear. People are afraid that they will be belittled, dismissed, all of these things, that's a drug addict or some negative thing, but cannabis is lightweight. Come on, you can admit cannabis these days. And the fact that I don't know when Joe started, but if he did start later in life, that's cool. I mean, you are mature, developed, you have developed some responsibility skills, all of these kinds of things. This is a good thing. You don't want people to engage in any kind of behaviors when they're young and immature that might put them in harm's way. And so we want people to be developed at least. I mean, whether it's being in a relationship with a partner or whether it's driving an automobile, all of these things that can be potentially harmful, but extremely beneficial if you are responsible enough to handle them. You want people to be mature, so that's a good thing. So how are you supposed to, like somebody like me, somebody like Joe, how are you supposed to understand what the dangers are, what the negative effects are? So you said automobile, relationships. I think I have a reasonably, it's crappy, but reasonable understanding of all the troubles I can get with in relationships and what things to avoid. Same thing with driving a car. I have no idea. I'm in the dark in terms of what are the things to be careful about, what to avoid with drug use when we're talking about the heavy drugs. Have you ever drank alcohol? Yes. That's drug use. I know, I drank a lot. But I understand that because culturally I came up, I was taught a lot of like, this is what you don't do and this is what you do. This is when you drink a lot. I mean, you see the effects, you see the, there's a lot of negative examples, there's positive examples of social stimulant. There's examples of great artists using alcohol to sort of, I don't know, to help be the catalyst for that magic moment, for all of that. I have some examples now, especially in America, the same with weed, more and more you're starting to get a lot of stories of psychedelics of different kinds. There's psilocybin where you have mushrooms or even MDMA used sort of positively. There's kind of like negative stories from the past about acid, about LSD being used, ultimately for productive ends, but it destroyed the person. That's kind of how the story goes. It was like a trade off. You take, it's like, what is it? Robert Johnson sold his soul to the devil to learn guitar. Like it's a trade off. You can take the drug, you're gonna create some good stuff, but you have to pay for it. Those are the stories. That's some bullshit we tell children, come on. That's exactly right. You're exactly right. These fairy tales, these cautionary tales that we tell people, we have to grow up. That's what the book is about, drug use for grownups. We tell people, Pinocchio, if you lie, your nose grow. Who believes that? Who believes that there are fairy tales? But that's exactly what these stories are. They're in the same vein as those kind of stories, as Pinocchio. Like you said, when you were learning about alcohol, you were told what to do, what not to do, so forth. The same can be true with MDMA, with cocaine, with heroin. The same is true, because there are some times when there are some potential dangers that you should avoid. And I wrote about some of them, certainly in my work, just throughout all of my writings. I talk about those kinds of things and other people talk about these things. The problem is, is that we're getting our education from bullshit sources, from people who believe in this kind of Pinocchio thing. And it just does not fit with the evidence. And the evidence we all publish in the scientific literature, all these things that I'm saying, it's there in the literature. I mean, at a place like Columbia, we give these drugs thousands of doses every year. Do you think we would be doing this? And we do this with research grants that's funded by the public, taxpayers dollars. Do you think we would be allowed to do this if these drugs were so dangerous? It's just nonsense. I mean, and the drugs we're talking about, they are all approved for medical use somewhere in the world. And the studies you conduct are basically asking what kinds of questions. So you take the full range of drugs you're talking about from marijuana to psilocybin to MDMA to cocaine and heroin. What is the study looking at? Like what the actual experience with the positive and negative effects of the experience on the drug are in the control conditions. Yeah, so we did these kinds of experiments with alcohol, nicotine, all these drugs in order to have an empirical database to tell people exactly what these drugs do and what they don't do. The conditions under which the drugs will produce positive effects, the conditions under which the drugs were more likely to produce negative effects. All of this information is important for society to know. And we do know, and that's why we're collecting the data. We're collecting the data to help us with treatment if someone is having problems with these data. Hopefully we'll understand more about how to help them deal with their problems based on some of the research that we're doing. So what kind of negative effects are we looking out for? Like what are the properties of drugs we should be careful about? Is it addictive properties? How addictive it is, how destructive or painful, I mean, other than that, I dig what's that about. Yeah, I don't understand that, but that's what they do. Again, this sort of glorification of cops, that's dangerous for a society. And those cats who do that kind of thing, I have a problem with that. Is it all sort of to push back a little bit? Because I come from the Soviet Union where there's a huge amount of corruption. And when I see what's going on with cops in this country, there's a lot of proper criticism you can apply, but like relative to other places, this is, well, on so many ways, this country is incredible. Is your criticism towards cops or towards what cops are asked to do? Yeah, towards what cops are asked to do. Cops provide the shield for politicians and those in power. Absolutely, because I was in the military, I spent four years in the military and I did what I was told to do. And I was ignorant and thought I was doing the right thing. And I did what I was told to do. And so just like these guys are doing what they're told to do. But no, my real beef is with the power structure, the folks who are telling them what to do. And also the folks who go play cops on television. That imagery, that sort of glorifying cops, that's a problem in a democracy. Yeah, all sides of the glorification of the drug war is a problem. Yeah. If I can just linger on a little longer in terms of the effects of drugs, on the positive like mind expanding components of it, what have mind altering drugs teach you about the human mind? Sort of from a neuroscience, not even like a biochemical, but just like the human mind is amazing, right? The places it can go. Like, are there some insights you've learned from studying drugs about the mind? Yeah, can I start from a neurochemical perspective first and then we'll go larger? Just from a neurochemical perspective. I mean, everything I know about the brain, I learned through drugs because of my interest in drugs. So I learned a lot about dopamine neurons in certain regions of the brain, about neuro epinephrine neurons and a wide range of other sort of neural transmission happened because of drugs. And so that's a really valuable tool, lessons for me. But then when we think that we move out a bit and we think more globally, what have I learned in terms of the mind from drugs? I have really learned how to be more forgiving of people and myself and tolerant, more tolerant of people and certainly learned a lot more about empathy as a result of drug use. And like I said earlier, I'm learning what we can be as a species and it's quite incredible, but because of drugs. Yeah, there's a certain property of drugs in different ways. They take you out of your body, like they help you evaluate yourself from like a third person perspective. It's almost like you have a consciousness in here and you get to step outside of it a little bit. I mean, that's kind of what meditation does too. All of these processes, that's what a hell of a good workout does too. It makes you evaluate yourself and then somehow that allows you to be forgiving to yourself and forgiving to others, sort of empathize. It trains that part of your brain. So stepping outside of yourself, not taking yourself too seriously, that process. And different drugs do that in different ways. Obviously, I don't know from personal experience on some of them, but I'm now curious, it's unfortunate that the Hollywood and different stories we have demonize certain drugs and sort of basically, I don't know, make it difficult for people like me to explore those ideas, but then I'm really thankful for people like you who are pushing the science forward and are unafraid to talk about this kind of stuff. Cause I'm really fascinated with consciousness on the engineering side. I really want to build robots that have elements of intelligence, emotion, even consciousness. And for that, we need to understand it in ourselves and drugs is all the different kinds of drugs. If you safely seems like an incredible tool to understand ourselves. And if we're limiting ourselves from certain drugs because of certain political games that are being played, it's sad. And people know this, a lot of middle to upper class people know this, the illicit drug trade business is a multi million dollar industry, multi billion dollar industry that could not be supported by people who are poor. And that has to be supported by a lot of customers. And a lot of people around the world know this, they're in the closet and in the book, I call for them to get out of the closet. So we can start being more honest and we can take the pressure off of those people who are not as privileged. Like I said, you're brave, you're bold. I gotta ask you for some advice. What advice would you give to a young person today? High school, maybe undergrad, college, thinking about their career, thinking about how to live a life they can be proud of. Yeah, whatever career they choose, just make sure that they dedicate themselves to it and be the best at what they do first. That's what you have to do first. Like people see me advocating for this position. 30 years of science is in these opinions, this view. And trust me, I would be dismissed if I didn't know my shit, if I was not. Yeah, you did the work, you proved yourself, you're legit by the people in the eyes of the people who know. Absolutely, so that's the main thing that I would encourage people to do, really know your craft. If you know your craft, and then maybe you will be a service to your fellow citizens. There are so many people out here faking the funk and they don't know their craft and they're not a service to the people that they claim to serve. And that's a problem. And when you have a fair number of people like that in positions of power, your society is going to crumble. What about the scientific path? You recommend people get a PhD? Not necessarily, like my own children, I don't recommend that. So science can, certainly my science can be a very petty sort of space to be in. But it was the only sort of path that I had. And so I had to do it. But no, I would really encourage people to just do something that they enjoy and something that makes them happy. Because the greater number of happy people in our society, the better off we all are. All right, since you mentioned happiness, gotta ask you about the pursuit of happiness and the ridiculous question about meaning. Do you think this life has meaning? What do you think is the meaning of life? I'm sorry. I certainly hope it has meaning. I mean, I'm certainly trying to live my life like it has meaning. You know, I really love my life now. I just got back from Geneva. I spent the summer abroad in Europe and trying to be in a more civilized place where you can enjoy yourself as a responsible adult. And then it allowed me to decompress and then come back here. The thing about coming back here is that you have to be ready to fight. And I don't wanna fight anymore. I just wanna be able to help a society and people. And so I'll have to keep a place in Europe to go and decompress and then come back to be able to tolerate the situation. So life for me has a lot of meaning. I'm enjoying life. And this is like the greatest, the best part of my life ever right now at this moment. So it's the joy, but you also enjoy the fight a little bit or? No, I don't really, I'm tired of that. You know, it's like, why? You're trying to, I'm trying to help people to see how they can be happy and then people are fighting me on that. I don't wanna be happy. I wanna be ignorant. Leave me alone. That's what people are saying. Well, so what is the source of joy for you when you decompress? MDMA is a source, you know, and a place where you don't have to worry about laws, that's like Europe. You can feel really free. Yeah, heroin can even be a nice space if I'm in my own head, but with others, MDMA is great. So, but good friends, good food. The usual. Yeah, yeah. Family, love. Yeah, that's right. Carl, you're an incredible human being. You really make me think. Everyone who listens to this, I mean, I'm really glad you exist. I know you say you don't like the fight, but I'm really glad you're fighting the fight because it's gonna help a lot of people. It's gonna help, at the very least, help a lot of people think and challenge the conventions of the day and maybe challenge them to find joy. I really appreciate you spending your valuable time with me. This was an awesome conversation. Thank you so much for talking to me. Thank you for having me, man. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Carl Hart. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Frank Zappa. A drug is not bad. A drug is a chemical compound. The problem comes in when people who take drugs treat them like a license to behave like an asshole. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time. whatever the withdrawal processes, what kind of things are we looking out for? Yeah, those are certain kind of questions we certainly have asked because like something like crack cocaine versus alcohol or heroin when it comes to withdrawal of physical dependence. Like cocaine has a very limited sort of withdrawal symptoms. I mean, it's hard to see. Same is true with methamphetamine. But with heroin, you certainly can see a withdrawal syndrome that's unpleasant, but with alcohol that withdrawal can actually kill you. So heroin is unpleasant and not lovely, but with alcohol withdrawal, that's the one, that's the most dangerous. I mean, all of these kind of questions we wanna know answers to. And so when we think about heroin or some other drugs and you say like, what kind of negative effects? Negative effects, we don't talk about much in the society. The main thing that really concerns me about like heroin use really is constipation. So if people are using heroin on a regular basis and then they have a sort of slowing of their gut modality, they're likely to increase constipation and that's not good. I mean, for your general health, but we never talk about that in this society. And that's probably the most important thing aside from the fact that people get contaminated street drugs and that sort of stuff and increase the likelihood of maybe dying from some contaminant or people who are inexperienced and they're mixing heroin with other sedatives. That's not good, but the constipation is a huge one. And then other sort of drugs, negative effects like the amphetamines, all of the amphetamines, they disrupt sleep, food intake, all of these things are so critical for sustaining human life, but we never talk about that because it's not as sexy as this nonsense that people write about like addiction. Addiction has almost nothing to do with the drugs themselves. And I make that comment because the vast majority of users for any drug never become addicted. And so if the vast majority of users don't become addicted, then you have to move beyond the drug when you're talking about the phenomenon interest in this case, addiction. And so when we think about addiction, it has much more to do with our psychosocial environment than the drug itself, but that's not sexy. So addiction is even the property of the environment, not a property, a result of the environment. It certainly can be. There are people who are suffering from cooccurring mental illness like depression, anxiety. I mean, that's within the person, of course, and that increases the likelihood for addiction. So that's not so much the environment, but there are people who, for example, they have chronic unrealistic expectations heaped on them. And those people are more likely to have some problems with drugs. There are people who are just immature, not having developed responsibility skills. They are likely to have some problems if they engage in some of these behaviors. There are people who lost their jobs, COVID, factories went away, a wide range of things. And those people used to have standing in their community. Now they have none. Those people might be susceptible to having a drug related problem if they indulge. All of these kinds of issues are far more important than the drug itself. And so they could seek escape in a particular drug. I mean, there is a biochemical thing to each of these drugs, and some pull you in harder than others when you need the escape, right? When you're not doing well in life. What evidence you have for that bullshit? I don't. Yeah, because there is none. There is absolutely none. I mean, people say stuff like that, and that's the problem. That's precisely the problem. See, I'm operating from limited personal evidence. Well, this is a problem though, but we have a scientific database. We don't need personal evidence for this. We have, in my book, I try to go through some of the science so people could understand. It's like when you have a math problem, you don't want people saying, well, you know, I feel like this. Fuck what you feel. What does the data say? So one of the problems with the data, so one data is there's the studies that you're doing, this is excellent research work, but there's some of the drugs that are illegal. Yes. And some are legal. So you have just, it's unfortunate that some of the drugs are illegal or whatever you believe, but there's not enough of a data set of public and the open use. That's like you got in the wild data set. It'd be nice to do, you know, thousands of people and see from all the different kinds of environments and all that kind of stuff to get an understanding. I think we have a substantial database, but people just ignore it. Got it. That said, let me ask you the question of legalization. So should, in your view, all drugs be legalized? The drugs that people seek certainly should be legally regulated and available to adults. So when I say the drugs people seek, like cannabis, MDMA, cocaine, heroin, those drugs certainly should be available. And some of the psychedelics that people seek. Now, the thing about it is that some people think that, oh, it will be a free fall. These drugs are available to everyone. That's not true. I mean, there will be age requirements and maybe other requirements, but they should be available. And we should also do like what we do with alcohol. We can put enough alcohol in a bottle to kill you, but we don't. So we regulate it such that the amount that's in the bottle enhances the safety and minimizes the potential harms. We can do the same thing with these other drugs. And we can also say, okay, we won't be selling intravenous preparations of any of these drugs. The drugs that the routes of administration will be oral and I don't know, let's say intranasal. Again, routes of administration, the dose that you have in each unit, all can minimize harm based on how you do these things. And we can do that. We have the technology, we have the knowhow. So you're actually making me think about alcohol a little bit. So if I were, say the drugs become legalized in the way you're describing, and me, Lex, wanted to, as an adult, explore some of these drugs, what are some procedures do you think for sort of safe, positive exploration of those drugs? The reason I say I'm thinking about alcohol because I don't think, besides not putting enough alcohol in a bottle to kill you, I don't think anyone ever gave me specific instructions. I think it's kind of word of mouth and examples of people doing the wrong thing. You kind of get it through osmosis that way. Is that basically what we would do, this kind of free exploration of use? No, we have to change our education about these things. I mean, let's just take a drug like cocaine. Cocaine's a stimulant. You want to make sure people understand that they shouldn't be taking cocaine near bedtime. You know, they need to get a certain amount of hours of sleep and they need to get up in the morning. Cocaine probably isn't a drug for you at night. Certainly not. Certainly not amphetamines at night for most people. And also, if you want to make sure that you, they need to understand that cocaine can also disrupt your food intake. Not as much as the amphetamines, but all of these kinds of things people need to know so they can have proper nutrition and they can time their drug use around these other important functions that's the same human life. So we have to make sure that we educate people. We can't just throw people in a while. That's stupid. I gotta tell you, I mean, for me, and even given your book and for people listening to this, it's still tough to hear that the thing we should be concerned about with cocaine is the same as with caffeine. Don't take it before bed. And the thing we should be concerned with heroin is constipation. Yeah. Okay. But the questions I keep wanting to ask you, I should be asking the same things of alcohol, but when you're not doing well psychologically in the ways you describe, when the environment is not right, there's some aspect in which saying that drugs can be used responsibly and effectively and mostly positive can give those folks a pass to use it instead of working on themselves and fixing their environment first. I don't know, what do you want me to say to that? I mean, they have access to alcohol, they have access to the... You know, we live in this country called the United States where our Declaration of Independence says that we are free to live like we wanna live so long as we don't disrupt other people from doing the same. But it's remarkable to me how we try to control the behaviors of other people. That's just remarkable. Yeah. And that's partially what your book is about. I mean, it's not just about drugs, it's about freedom. That's the bigger issue that we can't get to. It's like this issue of freedom and freedom comes with a tremendous amount of responsibility. I am responsible for my neighbors, my brothers. I mean, I can't impede their freedoms. Like some people think that their freedom supersedes everybody else's freedoms. No. And that's what I'm trying to remind people in this book. I am responsible to you as a citizen and we're in this together. And I tried to make that point in the book and people have conveniently ignored things like that. Do you think the war on drugs has done more positive or negative for the world? Depends on which world you live in. The war on drugs has been hugely beneficial to law enforcement, to the media, to people who make bullshit TV shows. The Sopranos, The Wire, all of those shows, they benefit from this kind of nonsense. Who else have benefited? People who provide treatment, many of them benefit from the war on drugs. The folks who do urine testing for drugs, they've all benefited. They're making mad money. People who run prisons, the phone companies who charge the prisoners, the people who run the hotels that are around the prisons where people's family have to come and stay, the restaurants, they are making out like bandits. But many of us are getting screwed as a society. In general, we're getting screwed, but there are people who are just benefiting handsomely. That's why it continues. Politicians benefit. I mean, whether you're Democrat or Republican, you have the same stance on drugs anyway, so they all benefit from this. So many questions I want to ask you, because you're challenging a lot of beliefs that people have about drugs, about society in general. So it's difficult for me to ask the right questions here. If you were with a sort of a snap of a finger, change the world, what from a policy perspective would you, and from just a, I don't know, human to human perspective, what would you like to see in the United States of America in terms of if that fixes some of the problems we're discussing here? First of all, we wouldn't be arresting anybody for drugs anymore. That would go away. The folks who are in prison for drugs, that would go away. Their records would be expunged, that would just go away. And then we work on a system to make sure that responsible adults can legally obtain these substances and we'll have a corresponding educational system to teach people how to do this. That's where I would start initially. Yeah, the arresting for drug use or anything drug related is absurd, especially in the context of hard destructive alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol can be destructive to some people, but alcohol also is a hugely beneficial drug. To be honest, which I couldn't have gotten through many of the sort of receptions and functions I had to go through as the chair of the department without alcohol. Yeah, you have a line I really liked. The vast amount of predictably favorable drug effects intrigued me, so much so that I expanded my own drug use to take advantage of the wide array of beneficial outcome specific drugs can offer. The part that entertained me was this. To put this in personal terms, my position as department chairman from 2016 to 2019 was far more detrimental to my health than my drug use ever was. I mean, there is a standard we're treating drugs, certain kinds of drugs that's completely different than the standard we're treating everything else in our lives. Yeah, I mean, it's almost difficult to snap out of it as I'm listening to you and reading your work. It's difficult because it's like, why is everybody living this idea that certain drugs are so horribly destructive and others are not? And we just kind of fix that idea. And then there's this narrative, I hate to be so cynical to think that there is just like a system that just propagates narratives. I always kind of think that truth wins out. Truth is the best narrative. I believe that too. Obviously, that's why I'm out here and putting, subjecting myself to this sort of criticism and so forth, but because I believe that truth ultimately wins out, but I might be wrong, but I have to live my life like it's true. Otherwise, then I have no hope, then why be here? Well, kind of, if you can steal man or at least show respect to a criticism, you've I'm sure received quite a bit of criticism for your work. I've heard quite a bit of BS criticisms, sort of ignorant stuff that don't actually pay attention to your work, but is there some serious, like is there some pushback that makes you think twice? People say like, I'm presenting a too rosy picture of drugs. I don't wanna do that. I don't want people to think that I'm not aware of the potential negative effects of any activity, including drug use. And so I do acknowledge that there are potential harms associated with drugs. I acknowledge that in the book, but the fact remains the beneficial effects far outweigh the potential harmful effects. And we have technology information to help people to minimize the likelihood of negative effects. But this sort of approach that we have where we say we're only exclusively presenting the harmful effects and that should make people, keep people safe. I just have a problem with that. But I certainly, I take the point that people say there are negative effects. Absolutely, I absolutely agree. What do you, if I can just talk about specific drugs, what's the difference between opioids and benzos, for example, specifically, I mean, these are drugs that you often read about being misused at scale. I mean, the misuse is the problem, right? No matter what the drug is. And that's actually what you're pushing for is education and it should be legal and should be good. So people should know what's the difference in proper use, positive use and misuse. I mean, one public figure who has been going through this is Jordan Peterson, he's been public about his struggle of getting off benzos, the withdrawal he's going through. I mean, what are your thoughts about the misuse of benzos or opioids and so on, the epidemic that people talk about? Yeah, I don't know Jordan's specific case, but certainly with benzodiazepines in general, we talked about withdrawal earlier. When I said that with alcohol withdrawal, you can die. So benzos and alcohol, they're closely related. So benzo withdrawal too can kill you just like alcohol. So when we think about the effects that benzodiazepines produce, think about the effects that alcohol produce, they're comparable or similar. And so I know that it's a difficult one to wean yourself off if you develop the dependence, but we have protocols for that and I hope he's okay. It's interesting you say we have protocols for that, but from my understanding was that like the protocols aren't standardized. It feels like a lot of doctors aren't as helpful as they could be in this process. Like it's a bit of a mess. Certainly with withdrawal, they're more standardized than anything. So like if someone is going through alcohol withdrawal, there is a standard protocol that most physicians in this business, they follow. The same is true with a benzo withdrawal. But the thing where it gets murky is when they're treating addiction itself. So when you're thinking about the substance use disorder in the DSM, not just withdrawal, but the entire addiction, that's where you have this sort of a divergence or diversity in terms of approaches. And many of those approaches are rubbish. Can you just elaborate like technically what the term addiction means that you're referring to? When I use the term addiction, I'm referring to the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, number five now, the DSM five. That's never been wrong, right? I'm just kidding. You're absolutely, that point is well taken. And your point is that their definition of substance use disorder, that's addiction. That's what I'm talking about. But that definition continues to evolve. And so you're right. They still are working it out. We're getting new information from scientific studies and so forth. And so it's supposed to be incorporated into the DSM, but there are some problems with the DSM. Like for example, they also have this sort of once an addict, always an addict thing. And there's no evidence to support that, but it's evolving. And it's the definition that people in science and medicine use. And so we all know we're talking about the same language when we call someone a substance use disorder patient or someone who meets criteria for addiction. We all are speaking the same language. We're not saying that simply because this person use heroin, they are an addict. That's not what we're saying. You have to meet these criteria where you have disruptions in your psychosocial functioning. That's one. And two, you, the person are distressed by these disruptions. So people have to meet those two basic criteria before we say they are addicted. So once an addict, always an addict, this idea. So I've, I mean, some of it is always mapped to the person, all right. But just the people I've interacted with who have struggled with alcohol addiction, I don't know what the proper term is. It seems like with Alcohol Anonymous, the process of putting that addiction behind you is a very, very long process. It's surprisingly long to me. That almost seems like a whole life. Like, he's not always an addict, but it takes decades. It seems like, what is that? What, can you maybe just, from your understanding as a scientist, from your understanding as a human who studies human nature, why does it take so long to treat, to deal with that addiction? Well, you cited Alcohol Anonymous, right? And so I don't think of Alcohol Anonymous as like a treatment that I would send any relative to, like for a drug related problem. I think Alcohol Anonymous AA is really good for social interactions, making sure people have a social group and they have peers. I mean, that's a good thing. We all need that social interaction. But I don't think they know much about drugs. That's not, it's like saying, well, you know, my uncle broke his knee and he has this support group and they said this, and then we follow that. That doesn't make any sense. But in our society, judges even sentence people to go to AA. Are you kidding me? But that's the kind of thing that has been allowed to happen in this society because we think of drugs as this moral failing or drug addiction as this moral failing. And any idiot can provide treatment and no disrespect to AA because I think what they do is a lot more than what some people do because at least they have this social, these social interactions, you have a social group. That's better than what a lot of these other idiots out here do. Well, and that social support group unrelated to the drug, it helps cure some of the environment issues you might be in. That's the whole point. So we kind of coupled the drug to the environment, but the reality is, as you argue, most of the problems come from the environment. Certainly with people who are experiencing drug related problem with most of the people, not all, but most. There are differences like that psychedelics and like psilocybin has versus alcohol. I personally think I've enjoyed both experiences in different ways. Is it possible or are we getting into the realm of poetry to describe the benefits, like how it alters the mind, how the different drugs alter the mind and the places it can take you that produce a positive experience? Yeah, no, it's very real. Like some drugs take people in places that other drugs can and that's very real. I have friends, some of them you know, they, for example, say that they've never had an experience like the one they had with ayahuasca and they've done a number of sort of things, but they did the ayahuasca in a setting with a shaman and this group and they felt like they actually began to heal or solve some problems that they were trying to solve for some years. And that's great, that's great for them. And nothing else does it for them like that. And that's absolutely fantastic. All I argue is that if that kind of thing happens for you with ayahuasca, with psilocybin, with some other psychedelic, why isn't it possible that heroin does that for someone or cocaine does that for someone else or MDMA does it for someone, that's it. That's interesting to imagine like a shaman for heroin. Like why not? Or cocaine, you said creating an environment for yourself, for use of these different substances and that environment has a very strong impact on the actual experience that you have. But I mean, so cocaine is an upper and then. Yeah, the way we define drugs like uppers and downers, that's a really kind of inappropriate way but it's a quick way. So we certainly say cocaine is an upper or stimulant. But it depends on the activity of the person before they take the drug. Say like if you're like really active before taking a drug like cocaine, it might actually calm you. So it all depends on the activity of the person before they take the drug. I remember, I don't know if you know Matthew Johnson is. Of course. He did all these studies on, or I remember just reading a paper, I didn't get a chance to talk with him much about it, but it was about condom use and cocaine. And then like the doses and whether people are more or less likely. Like the unsafe thing there is the using or not using, or not using, I guess, condoms during sexual intercourse. I don't know, I just, I love that these drugs that have connotation probably because of Hollywood, negative connotations are actually being studied by science. And then the actual impact they have, and what are the negative effects. Again, in those studies often, the positive effects are difficult to quantify, I think. Maybe I guess you can from self report and so on. Positive effects are not difficult to quantify. You ask people about their euphoria, you can see how well people are getting along. Like in our studies that we have people sometimes in groups and you see how well they get along on the various drug conditions or placebo conditions. It's really, it's not that difficult. And then you can see these amazing studies with like Rick Doblin, like the looking at MDMA and combined with therapy, like how you can overcome certain PTSD things or depression and so on. Yeah, it's really interesting. It's really interesting. I had to ask you, cause you mentioned The Wire. Do you think The Wire, you think movies like Trainspotting, do you think they're ultimately destroying? Cause okay. Yes, they celebrate murder, right? The Godfather a little bit. Yeah. But another one, I mean, it's like these racist ass motherfuckers and they also are killing people, but yet they say, we don't do drugs. What kind of shit is that? I mean, people who are doing drugs, psilocybin or whatever. The thing is we're trying to be better people and trying to make our society better and you're killing people and you are denigrating people for using drugs. Are you fucking kidding me? And we let them get away with that as a society. Do you see those movies? I apologize if I'm not sufficiently informed. You see them as denigrating drugs? Of course. I mean, The Godfather. Yes, that's right. That's a good example. The Godfather, The Sopranos is all about that. I mean, Christopher is using heroin in The Sopranos and they have an intervention in one season and they are denigrating him. Are you kidding me? You just cut somebody's head off. Yeah, but they're, to be fair, they were denigrating, I think, all drugs. And then they're drinking alcohol in the butterbeam. Yeah, yeah. Come on, I mean, first of all, they're killing people. They don't have any space, none, to denigrate somebody who's just trying to alter their consciousness. Are you kidding me? And not bothering anyone else. But there's a lot of other mob movies that Scarface celebrates the murder and the drugs equally. So, I mean, it doesn't, it celebrates all of the, not just drugs or so on, it's extreme. All of those movies, you know, I loved all those movies. I'm from Miami, I loved Scarface. I even liked The Sopranos that I started looking at that shit with a critical eye and see what it's doing. But Scarface is dependent upon the American viewer having a certain view of people who deal in drugs. And that view is that these people are animals, basically. And in the end, the animal kills himself with too much cocaine and he was high. That's what they show. And so it's like, what the fuck? So it's leveraging, it's playing into not the better angels of our nature. The question. Don't take away these great movies from me. But it's true, you have to think about them critically in the context. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I like these movies. It's not a matter of taking away. It's a matter of making the writers be more honest to the reality. That's it. That's true. That's really true. And the writers, the people, the culture, all of it. I mean, they write these things. I just think about some hip hop artists. They say like, this is real. This is my experience and so forth. And that's how these movie writers, they write this bullshit and then say, well, this is real. Anyway, I get so upset talking about it because I know the harm it's doing. And I know those kinds of movies are the reason that we have this war on drugs. And all of these people are going to jail because of those kinds of movies. In the epilogue of your book, you quote James Baldwin. You cannot know what you will discover on the journey, what you will do with what you find or what you find will do to you. So let me ask, how has drug use or the study of drugs changed you as a human being? It has helped me think about other people's experience. So how we're all connected, like going to Northern Ireland. I don't know if you know much about the situation with the troubles and what those people went through. And so I see people there. Northern Ireland, by the way, is all white. And you see those people there suffering for the same reasons that people in Appalachia are suffering for. Neglected by politicians who told them lies about drugs and not dealing with the real problems, like West Virginia, for example. Their water's polluted, the factories have gone away, people are desperate and they're blaming drugs. Are you kidding me? So the politicians don't have to bring back the jobs. So we don't have to really make sure they have clean drinking water, things of that nature. And so those people are connected to the people in Northern Ireland. They're connected to the people in Brownsville. They're connected to the people in other places in the United States for the same reason. They're connected to the people in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Same thing, people are catching hell for the same reason in the Philippines for the same reason. And that's why I feel so strongly about this thing because I know there are people getting paid and their paycheck is predicated on subjugating and the suffering of those other people. So when we hear about the destructive effects of drugs, it's essentially a scapegoat for the failures of leaders and politicians to help alleviate the suffering of people in those communities. Absolutely, it's so easy to say, I'm gonna rid your community of drugs. I'm gonna put more cops on the street. If you want a problem not to be solved, just give it to the military or the cops. You had a tough childhood growing up in Miami, like you said. What memory stands out in particular that was formative and helping make you the man you are? That's so hard to say, my grandmother was really important. So maybe just her trying to make sure that I think critically, I guess that's the biggest one. So you moved in with your parents split? Six, seven, yeah. What have you learned about life from her? Be self sufficient, be critical and keep your eyes open and watch out for the okie doke. And that's what this whole drug thing is about. It's the okie doke, people, it really boils down to just simple thing. We're all similar in that we're all just trying to live our life, trying to take care of our kids. We want the best for our kids, all of us. But yet somehow we've been made to believe that we're different in that way. But fundamentally, we're all the same. So when people are seeking to feel pleasure, to feel better, why don't we celebrate that? Instead, we denigrate people for that. I mean, if I feel better, I'm more likely to treat you well. I got to say still, though, you're going against the grain and you're at Columbia, it takes a lot of guts to sort of speak out about these ideas so boldly. I don't know how to ask this question. Where do you find the guts? What, because it's also perhaps inspirational to others in different disciplines that are sort of taking on the conventional wisdom of the day. And challenging it, what does it take to do that? What advice would you give to others like you kind of a little bit afraid to do so? Once you know, you cannot not know, as they say. And so I have to look in the mirror. And then looking in the mirror, I have to face myself. Have I lived honestly? And if I can't face myself, then what am I doing here? You know, that's how I see it. One of the things that people don't really talk about with drugs and people who die from some drug related death. And I've been thinking about this a whole lot over the past couple of years. It's like some of these drugs can take you to a place where you feel so optimistic and positive about humans, our fellow humans. And you want to do your best to contribute. And because you know the possibilities of what we can be as a society. And then you come up with resistance and you, like you say, there are a lot, there's a lot of resistance and people just have a hard time. And so if you know humans can be better and they refuse to be better, why be here as someone who knows that we can do this better? I certainly don't want to do it the way we're doing it. So you kind of see drugs as mechanisms for potentially elevating the human spirit, sort of making people feel better. So you want to communicate that message. So it's that plus the fact that drugs are used as scapegoat to not alleviate the suffering of certain communities. So those two things come together. One of the sort of main points of the book too was to try and get people to understand the possibilities that we could have if we embraced certain drug use. If we allowed adults to do this sort of thing. Relationships can be better. A wide range of beneficial effects. People would be, or can learn to be more magnanimous. All of these pro social things that we say we value. In your previous book, High Price, you talk about rap and DJing, chapter five. There's a nice picture of you DJing from 1983. So let me ask who in your view, this is the toughest question of this interview, is the greatest hip hop artist of all time? Maybe give some candidates. Oh, wow. Who is the greatest hip hop artist? I don't know if I'm qualified to make that bag because I have to go back to like Gil Scott Heron. Like people think of him as one of the fathers of hip hop. That's my all time favorite. People like Chuck D from Public Enemy. Some of the things that they were doing, I was really digging, but even though I was digging like Public Enemy, but even they got it wrong on drugs. Even Gil Scott Heron got it wrong on drugs. But they were doing so much other good stuff. It helped me to develop as a person. And so I think like my son is a hip hop artist now. I think those folks who are in the game now, they are a lot more qualified to talk about who's the greatest hip hop artist. I'm not qualified. The evolution, I mean, have you tracked the evolution from sort of the 90s with Wu Tang and Tupac and Biggie and then to what we have today? So there's just been a crazy amount of progress. It's like almost difficult to track. Yeah, I mean, I really love what they're doing. I like what they accept the part where they get over 40 and they become fucking cops on TV.

本集資源與出處