Are We Being Told the Truth About Drugs? Dr Carl Hart
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июн 2024
- 💥Join us on our Journey to 1 Million Subscribers💥 SPONSORS:
Ridge Wallet: Use Code “TRIGGER ” for 10% off your order at www.ridge.com/TRIGGER
-
Manscaped. Receive 20% off Manscaped products when you use the code Trigger20. Check out their products www.manscaped.com
-
Professor Carl Hart is a psychologist at Columbia University and has authored numerous scientific and popular articles in the area of neuropsychopharmacology, including his latest book - Drug Use for Grown-Ups: Chasing Liberty in the Land of Fear - available now.
-
Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Locals! triggernometry.locals.com/
OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here:
www.subscribestar.com/trigger...
/ triggerpod
Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5
Buy Merch Here:
www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/
Advertise on TRIGGERnometry:
marketing@triggerpod.co.uk
Join the Mailing List:
www.triggerpod.co.uk/sign-up/
Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:
/ triggerpod
/ triggerpod
/ triggerpod
About TRIGGERnometry:
Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians.
-
CHAPTERS:
00:00 Intro
02:19 Is the Official Narrative True?
07:03 Decriminalisation vs Legalisation
12:48 Can Drugs Make Users Better People?
15:27 Health Harms of Legalisation?
17:16 A Grown-up Conversation About Drugs
18:40 Why People Take Drugs
21:00 Why Psychedelics Are Not 'Special'
25:57 Are Some Drugs More Dangerous Than Others?
28:59 Legalisation of Cannabis
30:33 The Politics of Responsibility
37:00 Marijuana: An Honest Conversation
42:03 Why Isn't the Media Honest About Drugs?
45:17 Why Are Some Drugs More Equal Than Others?
48:35 Why Is Drug Taking a Moral Issue?
51:16 Money Is the Driver Behind Continued Prohibition
53:10 Drug Cartels and Drug Traffickers
57:02 Will Drug Policy Change?
58:00 Love, Empathy and Generosity
![Natti Natasha - Quiéreme Menos [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/R57RrTjRGxk/mqdefault.jpg)
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've seen people trying to give up smoking and repeatedly failing due to addiction. Saying drugs are not addictive is total BS.
I think he was saying that most people take drugs recreationally and still manage to go about their life without getting addicted. I know many people who smoke weed at the weekend or have the odd line.
@@freddiemoses467 True.You can also take the odd party drug without being a junkie ,as some people believe
@@pebsurfing930 True. You get to my age now when you can't think of anything worse as it takes 2 days to get over.
Of course different substances have different addictive potentials and risks, no one serious denies that (and tobacco has been shown to be the *most addictive* - significantly more so than opioids, for example). The point is that what determines whether addiction occurs is far more due to other factors than is generally assumed.
Not all drugs are addictive.
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!
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
The example from the Sopranos was bizarre. Christopher was addicted to heroin.
As just about every heroin addict he became more and more unreliable, became very unpredictable, easy to blackmail, did crazy things to get money to pay for his addiction etc, etc.
If you are into heavy duty organised crime a heroin addict in the ranks is about as dangerous to your liberty as there could be - that's why he was reviled.
I think we all hated Ralphie far more after Tracey and Pie O My!
The (inaccurate) pharmacologic determinism of your heroin example aside... Dr. Hart's point was to highlight the hypocrisy for people to revile someone for using a drug (which is a legally prescribed medication in some countries) while at the same time idolizing a closely related character who MURDERS PEOPLE for a living.
The way this attitude about people who use drugs plays out in the real world is, for example, the tens of thousands innocent people who themselves have been murdered in the Philippines over the past several years.
Gabor Mate says ask not "why the addiction..ask why the pain"
that strawman gets us nowhere. are we going to cure the world's ills while simultaneously legalising drugs. that doesn't sound risky at all
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,
We need to ask ourselves this question, “why do we feel pleasure?” Is there an evolutionary reason why we feel this emotion? What makes sense to me, is that we feel pleasure to re-enforce behavior the leads to the pleasure again. So if we image a caveman, when he does something right, he will feel pleasure because of it. What happens next deep in the caveman's mind, is that all the unpleasant things that led to him to getting pleasure, is then proven to not be wasteful activities. So his mind begins to focus on being better at the painful or unpleasant things that gave him a payoff. It's like our own brain is giving us a gold star every time we do something that helps our survival. It's the algorithm that I feel governs all living things that can think. If someone spent hours looking for fish in a river, then spears a fish, then tasted the cooked fish, then the pain of spending hours waiting for a fish turned out to be useful, and then cooking the fish in the right way turned out to be useful. Then after the brain feels good from eating the fish, those painful things like boredom of standing in the river, and the extra task of cooking the fish then change from painful to pleasurable activities themselves.
What changes is that the caveman now wants to go back to the river, and wants to search the river intently and quietly, and wants to remember everything he learns about fishing, because it will mean more fish, and that means more survival, and it's the pleasure of tasting the fish that connected the work with the reward.
So when I see people spending hours at slot machines in a casino, I feel like their brains have been hacked in a way. Because they are getting pleasure from something that is really so mindless and repetitive. This is why I think drugs are bad too, even if people don't get addicted. Because pleasure should only come from natural things, that are attached to sustainable behavior that leads to a real reward. This is how nature intended for humans to operate. They work for what they want, some work proves successful, other work proves to not be successful, and the mind understands the difference, because it felt pleasure from the outcome of the successful work. Pleasure tells the mind, what behavior it should devote mental resources too. In a sense, the brain is trying to become addicted to what helps it survive.
When I observe the people I have met in my life they all seem to be following the same pattern, they are repeating, and improving upon the things that once lead them to pleasure. This, I believe is a powerful mechanism of the human mind. So powerful is it's control over us, that it can be very hard to redirect it once it's well established.
Perhaps, it's not the drugs that are causing addiction, it's the pleasure the drugs fill the brain with that causes it, the brain will create an information network connected to the pleasure just like any pleasure experience. Only drugs give our brain so much pleasure, that it powerfully forces our mind to obsess about the drug. Our brain may not be designed to handle that much pleasure, because in evolution, our brain never created that much for it's self naturally.
If our brains are introduced to pleasure artificially, it likely would interfere with the way pleasure is suppose to help us survive. The stronger pleasure would override the weaker pleasure as the main priority to obtain. Our own mind is turned against us. Like a computer, our mind becomes hacked by introducing false data into it.
Some people say that pleasure is bad, and to avoid it. Other people say “if it feels good, do it”. What I think the truth is, is that pleasure is always good if it accurately communicates what is happening to us. If pleasure is not telling our brain what it needs to know, but instead telling us that a destructive or useless activity is good, then the pleasure is bad for us. To me, artificially creating pleasure with drugs is all bad data going into our mind, and our mind will act on the bad data, forming an addiction to something that hurts us or does us no benefit, yet to our sub-conscience mind, it's fooled and doesn't know the difference.
It's like the “check engine” light on your car. The “check engine” indicator is not evil or bad as long as it's telling the truth about your engine. If there really is a problem with your engine and the light doesn't turn on, then that's a problem, and your engine may not be serviced like it needs to be without the warning.
If you ever have seen a drug addicts house, you can see evidence of a life out of control, and the addict can't understand how bad their situation is, they might be reminded of it sometimes when they are sober, but to live like that to me, means that check engine light in their heads should be on, and it's not, so they see their life all about the drugs, and not about useful things like family and work.
In fact the whole problem may be that we are suppose to develop a relationship with work naturally using pleasure and pain. Drugs are one of the things that can interfere with that natural development of the association between successful work and reward.
Work is the real source of pleasure that our brain is supposed to get addicted too. When we build something, cook something, fix something, form a relationship with someone, all those things help us, and will also potentially add success to our future as well. If you fix a car, you now have a car, and all your pinched figures were worth it. If you build something and it works, then all those failed attempts when you were learning were worth it. If you compromise what you want to do with your time to help a friend, then you are more likely to have them as a companion when you need them, again worth it. When pleasure is used correctly, it builds many kinds of wealth that becomes a long lasting benefit to us, and makes us more skilled in useful things. Drugs are a shortcut to that process that doesn't lead us to the same destination.
Last note, I do believe drugs can be helpful with some mental illnesses, like depression and others. It's all about getting accurate information to our mind, but recreational drug use I'm strongly against, and I don't think our minds are capable of medicating ourselves with drugs, we need the help of a doctor that is not addicted themselves to drugs. Use your mind the way evolution made it is what I say, but choose for yourself. The modern world may be different then when the cavemen walked the earth, but that same pleasure and pain algorithm in our heads can still save us, if we don't screw it up.
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
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.
In my mind, Carl goes about 10%-20% overboard with his views on drugs, but my god, what a breath of fresh air!
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...
I used to be a part of London squatter scene, met loads of users (from occasional to junkies), I know what I say when I say I don't fancy most of the drugs, still maintain the view that adults can decide for themselves. Can confirm that drugs are less of a problem than the mainstream holds.
They are a problem in itself though. Saying they are not is very far off real life experience. Users will have altered behaviours, mostly harmless, almost always burdensome.
And that race edge to the whole stance is an utter BS, black ppl please quit that, it hurts the points you make.
I disagree. Drugs don't make people treat others better, it makes people more self absorbed.
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'm trying to be open-minded on drug legalisation/regulation to counter my bias as a one-time substance abuser, but this interview did the exact opposite....
....Dr Carl sounded high, confessed to previous attempts (with his wife) to buy drugs on a Friday night, rambled incoherently, referred constantly to his love of "evidence" yet providing none to back any of his claims, lazily dismissed counter-factuals and enormous anecdotal "evidence" as "nonsense", and disavowed politicisation of the debate until it suited his purposes.
At this point his modus operandi became clear.
Who needs to argue with logic, reason and evidence when you can simply pull the race card?
---> Konstantin, we understand that you need to ensure guests feel welcome and heard for all the obvious reasons, but you took it way too easy on Dr Carl.
The claim that essentially people simply take drugs because they make them feel good, was utterly preposterous, as was the follow-up assertion that this therefore means they'll treat others better.
You tickled him nowhere near enough!
Perhaps the most irritating idea that went unchecked was Dr Carl's juvenile Utopian conceit.
After eventually conceding that maybe some people take drugs to escape from life's hardships or to self-medicate illness, he blithely countered that this demonstrated that we didn't have a drug problem but a societal problem, so should just fix our society.
This is a self-defeating, dead-end argument that should've been used to stop Dr Carl in his tracks.
----> It begged the retort: "...so we should hold off on legalising drugs until our society is fixed?"
I'm open to a sober discussion about drug policy. Portugal has an interesting approach with decriminalization. But this guy is mad. He trivializes the most addictive and dangerous substances, e.g. heroine and meth. It's like he just can't grasp the concept that some people, maybe unlike himself, WILL develop an addiction and spiral out of control. This to me sounds like a more common story, when discussing the hardest drugs mentioned, than the "recreational use, benefiting from them" one that he likes to tell. Just ask the users themselves.
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).
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
The moment he dissed CHEECH & CHONG I knew he's a wrong un. The guy really hasn't thought through his ideology in relation to contemporary society and appears to be harbouring chips on his shoulders rather than putting them on the table for reasoned debate.
Cheech and Chong were hilarious.
@@grannyannie2948
C & C getting roasted THE RIGHT WAY
ruclips.net/video/uaRX4be6XsA/видео.html
Right on! We didn't like c&c bcoz it was reality , they were liked bcoz they exaggerated some truths.. like most comedy.
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
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".
I have a open mind about legalising drugs and somewhere inside this difficult topic there is a good argument to be had. I certainly think the "war on drugs" has become a self-perpetuating industry that does nothing at all to tackle the problem. But Dr Hart's position is so unconvincing and divorced from reality he is actually doing a disservice to his own cause. To what extent can you waffle around subjects like addiction in the real world, before what you are saying is just plain dishonesty.
I completely agree. Some of his remarks made my blood boil ...
I expected more “evidence” from this dude, instead I just heard a bunch of opinions.
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.
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.
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.
Expertise?
Treatment?
30 years later he's realised he knows fuck all!
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?
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.
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.
I think he's absolutely right and that one day people will understand and take it for granted that that is how it is, look back and laugh at how we see it now just like with everything else. The understanding we have today is outdated and a misunderstanding of what substances are.. We are also treating and blaming the symptoms of druguse instead of underlying psychological problems and psychososial surroundings wich is the actual problem..
Great interview!
Heroïne users treat people so awful, that even people who love the addict will feel forced to break relationship with the addict. Heroïne use produce awful behavior.
@@MrChristyCree - it's 💯 the drug. Wake up. I have known hundreds of smack addicts in my life. They all go the same way..no matter what their social status/ motals are. They all go out the window. Heroin captures the soul and destroys it.
@@MrChristyCree - yes I did know them personally. One was my best friend and now Is dead due to an overdose. Alcohol and opiates are the worse drugs out there. Heroin steals a person's soul. They lie, steal and can't be trusted to be around. Even some of the most honest people I have known.
Don't get me wrong I have done alot of drugs in my life. You name it, I have done it, in large quantities. I don't, however, touch anything these days. Haven't done now for years. Anxiety will always catch up with you. Drugs are not the answer to trauma.. it only masks it for a bit. You have to deal with it sober/straight, at the root cause. You will never move on while continuing to consume, mind altering substances.
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.
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
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.
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.
After 15 minutes I couldn't take this seriously anymore. I felt like I would have to be high to listen to any more.
Not at all convinced his conclusions are correct.
Well, if you're referring to his scientific work... it's generally peer reviewed, so that kind of speaks for itself.
Extrapolating that work to society at large is a different question, but it seems tough to argue that what we've been doing for so long is making things better (just cruise this comments section).
Yeah, he seems to have scientific perspective and then the easy part of political perspective based on his ideology. And then he refuses to comment on the hardest parts of political question, because he can't. The he should just stick to the scientific argument, in my opinion.
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?
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
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
this is the first time I do not agree with the guest
Thank you
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.
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!
_"Im an excellent responsable carefuk driver when drunk, therefore everyone should be able to drive drunk. Make it legal."_ argument type?? 🤔
Sums it up.
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.”
He lost all credibility at 18:40 when he said religion is a "nonsense reason that people give" for taking drugs. Certain plant medicines have been around for thousands of years and are very much a sacrament and religious ceremony.
Is this guy seriously suggesting it's a good idea for people to take cocaine because it makes people feel better and act nicer to other people?
My sister almost strangled by ex fiancee years ago who was addicted cocaine & alcohol. Mean & abusive when using.
Did you know that the mixture of cocaine with alcohol in the body produces a completely different drug? Look up "cocaethanol".
In any case, it's generally best to avoid mixing alcohol with all other drugs.
@@aaronwatter you're trolling, yeah? or are you for real suggesting that the answer to drug-related bad behaviour and crime is prohibition?
Trigger keeps moving from strength to strength. Trinidad
I clicked because I thought it was Denzel Washington on the thumbnail. I was thinking about Denzel’s sage comment a la the Will Smith incident my brain made the leap.
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.
I’ve known plenty of people addicted to cannibus, if you spoke it infrequently then it’s fine but if you smoke it everyday then yes you can develop mental health problems. I can spot these people a mile off because they cannot handle any stress, they become very agitated quickly and can’t wait to smoke and relive the stress. They are reliant on it and self medicate with it.
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.
Cartels: if you can smuggle drugs you can smuggle guns or traffic people
The James Webb Telescope is orbiting itself while looking backwards.
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?
This guy will cause more problems than good
That cold-cut at 50:25 was fucking brilliant. Great editing.
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.
The Trigger boys' biggest blind spot. Uncomfortable to see them nodding and giggling along to whatever 'cool' drug liberalisers say.
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.
Association + correlation are not causation.
I think you two should bring the Author, Beth Macy who wrote the book ‘Dopesick’ into this topic.
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 .
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.
Gabor Mate is far superior when it comes to the Underlying problems. For Example Trauma.... Check Out his Hungry Ghosts materials...
The good thing about opioids is that they render the user useless. You don't need to worry about being beaten and robbed by George Floyd.
This war on drugs has been ongoing for many years and the disgusting bum addicts have only increased and drugs are more easily available than ever. Wth.
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.
I think the real crime is when *one third* of the population is at 360p.
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.
Natives & Women for example are more sensitive to alcohol.
I think it's a fact.
Or possibly just propaganda, I've heard.
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
As a psych student I must humbly say I have never learnt that substance dependence should be accepted and thus decriminalised. I have learnt how harmful it is to the brain of the individual and also the external environment as many have already experienced and commented. I don’t agree that critical race theory or personal Heroin use should be the motivation to decriminalise substance abuse (I’ve just had a brief look at my uni database to confirm that the person was a psychologist and saw his work was concentrated mainly on people of colour). I think physical risks outweigh political beliefs. Also he is just putting out his theories just like Freud and John Money (the psych who tried to turn boys into “girls”). Please don’t bring politics under the guise of authority and science.
Substance dependence already IS accepted and decriminalized; you just have to be using the right substances. Judging by the number of people on SSRI's (or metformin for that matter), I don't think it's dependence per se that's at issue. It's "addiction" that defines a problematic relationship with a drug. But it's a false assumption that the addictive potential of a drug equals harmfulness, to the brain or otherwise (opioids being the prime example). More fundamentally, most of the addictive potential is not intrinsic to the drug; It's people that have potential, not molecules.
And with respect, the historical racial foundations of drug prohibition and criminalization are pretty far from being theoretical. Quite well documented, in fact.
@@aaronwatter @@aaronwatter Hi PLEASE CHECK WHY I USE THE TERM DEPENDENCE AND NOT ADDICTION. I did consult a peer assessed source before I used the term :).
I am also an RN so lucky me Ive encountered theoretical and actual effects of all types of drug use. If you are a health professional why do you support drug decriminalisation (S8 etc.) do you have a share in phrama (fentanyl for those curious) or any of the fun poppers????
"But it's a false assumption that the addictive potential of a drug equals harmfulness, to the brain or otherwise (opioids being the prime example)".
Are you serious??? Why do you take your time to lie to people like this??? There are hundreds of textbooks that state ANY and ALL drugs are harmful when not regulated and monitored even over the counter and synthetic babe.
Ah I see your trigger point... racial. HEY PETE DO YOU STILL BELIEVE IN DIFFERENT RACES??? WHAT STARTS WITH P AND ENDS WITH E???? You can at least say political rather than racial. I get it. In times of crisis there are parties that like to divide people. Every now and then they come up to the surface and start chaos. They come in different guises, divine right to rule, racial purity, equity, currently its inclusivity. Order and chaos, order and chaos...
@@louisa5336 And the race aspect is no "trigger point" for me, just a basic underlaying truth that deserves a spotlight, and requires fixing.
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....
Is he saying the crack epidemic didn’t happen?
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 football hooligan thing is true
the run dmc clip is fucking epic comedy :p
I think your guest may have enjoyed his research far too much. Why do you need to ingest an alien product to feel happy only as a temporary measure? Another activist peddling another social issue (dangerous one at that)?
Lots of hooligans take coke...but is it more the booz that gives them the aggression?
We’ve never been in a data based world, humans get in the way. I for one welcome our AI overlords.
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.
This guy is giving out horrible messaging. People abuse drugs sir it’s a major problem in america. Drugs are not harmless they come with consequence.
Life comes with consequences.
@@11East true..........unless your will Smith 😂
Carbon Fiber ftw 🙌
Facts and logic. Presumably Dr Hart has access to plenty of facts in his line of work and I have no desire to challenge that assumption without facts of my own. Logic, however, we can see he's weak on. It's fairly elementary that a sadist's feeling good involves someone else feeling bad, for instance. Similarly, he gives no convincing reason NOT to discriminate among drugs. They are different substances, they have different effects, why should they all be treated the same?
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.
How wounded full it would be to buy chemically clean cocaine ass a nasals pray 🤓
In a perfect world✅
People are not going to understand what he is saying because they just want absolutes. One side or the other. Blxck or whxte.
No fan of the war on drugs, but this guy is talking nonsense. All the hip hop artists disparaging drug use?? Huh???