Hamilton Morris and Joe Rogan dissect systemic failures in drug policy, from Purdue Pharmaceuticals’ opioid manipulation to Maryland’s abandoned psychedelic research due to funding cuts. Morris highlights naloxone’s withdrawal risks and xenon’s use in Russia for athletic performance, while critiquing benzodiazepine overprescription and its severe tapering dangers. They compare ibogaine’s ritualistic addiction treatment to modern compulsions like social media, framing all addictions as neurologically driven suffering—solvable only through maturity and systemic reform. Sci-Hub’s global scientific access contrasts with the internet’s toxic polarization, underscoring knowledge’s power over misinformation. [Automatically generated summary]
I mean, this winter, because it's everything that the entire country is facing, but it's the worst for COVID. It's also extremely cold.
A lot of city services seem to have been Impaired in one way or another.
The streets are covered in garbage and ice and dog shit.
Pretty much the only thing that I can do to maintain my sanity is run, but everything, including the outdoor running track, is covered in ice and shit.
It's just this dystopian, frozen, pandemic landscape where every local business that I loved is closing down.
I mean, I had one where I was loading my car with...
Bags at 2 in the morning on a Tuesday, and in the lobby of my building for maybe 15 minutes, somebody just, as soon as I walk around the corner, someone goes and scoops everything up.
Yeah, it's a wild time.
And I hope we're coming out of it.
I mean, right when I came to Austin, this is the first time I've, you know, been on an airplane since the beginning of the pandemic.
You're the first person I've spoken to without a mask.
And because it's also cold in New York, it just promotes this prison cell lifestyle where I'm just sitting in my apartment reading and doing push-ups all day.
The problem that I don't think the people that shut everything down for a fucking year ever take into consideration is that people don't have the resources to bounce back.
Things don't bounce back on their own.
If you want to start a business, it takes money.
It takes quite a bit of money to get a lease, to stock the shelves, to hire employees.
And when you've been out of business for a year, you don't have any money.
So you've probably used up all savings if you had any savings.
Try getting a loan when you don't have anything.
There's no real logical path forward for a lot of these businesses.
Because in New York in the wintertime, I mean, they're really trying.
They're doing things that I would have never, like, truly extraordinary things, like making these little heated space gazebos that are covered in mylar on the inside.
And they're...
And ultimately, most people don't even really want to do that.
So then there's this weird conflict of, is it moral to support these businesses because you want them to stay in business?
Or are you feeding into a system where people are subjecting themselves to unsafe working conditions?
So if the people decide that they're willing to work there and they're masked up and they feel safe working there, isn't that better than not having a choice to work there?
I guess the idea is that instead of people going on unemployment, they feel pressured to put themselves at risk when they really should be at home, not potentially spreading coronavirus and ideally receiving some sort of government assistance.
There's been no emphasis whatsoever on steps that you should take to make yourself healthier.
There's been no discussion of reducing obesity.
You've got to lose weight.
You've got to take vitamins.
You've got to do something to make sure that your immune system is strong.
Like, here are the steps that you can take.
Here's what we know about vitamin D. There's multiple studies that show that people in the ICU for COVID, 84% of them have insufficient levels of vitamin D. There's a significant correlation between low levels of vitamin D and weakened immune system.
They found only 4% of people in the ICU with COVID have sufficient levels of vitamin D. That's just one thing.
They know about zinc and ionophores like quercetin.
Quercetin allows zinc to get in the cell much more readily.
It's much more bioavailable and it protects you against viruses.
They know that vitamin C is also excellent for your immune system.
They know that water is excellent for your immune system.
But it's really hard to make those claims because even if they do confer some kind of therapeutic benefit, it doesn't seemingly prevent coronavirus infection.
And I think there has been some emphasis on obesity as a contributing factor.
The thing about it is, though, it does protect you somewhat from viruses.
It does keep your immune system strong.
I'll send you some studies.
There's some interesting stuff on zinc and quercetin that my doctor, Dr. Gordon, who is a specialist on this stuff, has sent me and recognized that there's significant steps that you can take with nutrients to boost your immune system.
Yeah, because I think you need really strong evidence.
And I've gone through all these different cycles.
I went first through the denial cycle, where I was like, it can't possibly be this bad.
It's got to be a hype thing.
Then I went through the, okay, well, maybe there's some antiviral agent that's in circulation right now, because everyone knew that there was no way that a vaccine would be developed immediately, that it would take a year, which it did.
And so the only hope at that time was a small molecule antiviral therapy of one kind or another.
So everyone who knew anything about medicinal chemistry or pharmacology was hoping that we'd find something.
And that's why there was so much interest in chloroquine.
You know, it became, like everything today, totally politicized.
And the problem with remdesivir is it had never been approved by the FDA at that time.
It's kind of difficult to synthesize, and it was very expensive, and it's administered IV. And so all those things kind of weighed against it just being made in some gray market lab in India or China and being mass distributed as like a potential intervention.
I remember, you know, when this started happening, the first thing I did was think, okay, I should, you know, start contacting various labs that I know and see if I can get interesting experimental And I remember I was ordering remdesivir early on, probably in March.
One of these labs said, oh, you know, it's very expensive.
It's $2,000 a gram or something.
But there's this other drug that we're using in China right now called chloroquine.
Very, very cheap.
It works just as well.
Would you like to try that?
And I thought, hmm, that's interesting.
That was the first that I'd heard about it.
Then there was this huge buzz surrounding it.
Everyone was talking about chloroquine, and there were a small number of studies that had been published that provided a little bit of support for it potentially being useful.
But then it became so politicized that people couldn't talk about it rationally anymore.
And it was a total, total mess.
I think that's the worst thing that could possibly happen in medicine.
It seems odd, and I also think that as of today, the evidence seems to point against it having a therapeutic effect, but there was a lot published.
It's going to be years before we unpack all of this stuff.
When I was saying earlier that the pace of medicine isn't suited to all this, it's been remarkable what people have achieved in this short period of time, and I don't mean to say that people haven't been working very hard.
Of course they have been, but you need meta-analyses.
You often need Years of work to really begin to understand the intricacies of how these drugs act in a context like this.
About New York in this very detailed step-by-step analysis of all the things that are wrong that you just can't resolve, that are not going to be resolved very quickly, including the crime, including the number of people that are moving out, including the number of businesses that have failed, including just across the board.
Well, I mean, making something like that During the pandemic, it was an amazing challenge.
In retrospect, I am actually grateful because I learned so many things that I wouldn't have learned otherwise.
Typically, these productions are so compartmentalized where there's somebody that records sound and someone that holds a camera and someone that does color correction.
And there still was that, but it sort of broke down so that everyone had to do everything and learn each other's roles in order to actually get it done.
Well, this is a really extraordinary time right now.
And for the last decade or so, when I've done this chemistry work with this brilliant chemist named Jason Wallach, there's been no funding whatsoever for this work.
The university pays for a little bit of it.
Tim Ferriss once was really nice and gave me a few thousand dollars to synthesize a radioactive psychedelic for an experiment.
There's a technique called autoradiography, where you can chart the migration of a molecule and its distribution in tissue by looking at the distribution of the radioactivity.
But there was no funding for it.
And the idea of ever getting money to research psychedelics, it would always have to be sort of distorted into research on schizophrenia, or you couldn't just say, I'm studying psychedelics.
You know, there's actually a psychedelic program with the UFC. I did not know that.
Yeah, John Hopkins is doing studies with former fighters and current fighters on CTE. One of the things about psilocybin that we know is that psilocybin actually helps regrow neurons.
It's one of the few things that really helps fighters with brain damage.
There's someone named David Olson, who's been publishing a lot of papers recently on psychedelic-induced neurogenesis, although most of his papers are oriented toward neurogenesis-inducing psychedelic derivatives that aren't actually psychedelic.
Yeah, I do wonder because, you know, there have been a number of compounds, one notable one called NSI-189 that are very potent neurogenesis inducing agents that do not have an impressive therapeutic effect that failed in clinical trials.
So it's Not as simple as just neurogenesis equals good.
There needs to be something else, it seems.
And the literature is contradictory.
I think all these things are in their infancy, and we're just now starting to...
Realize even a small fraction of their potential.
And I think that there's an idea, a widely believed idea, that the reason that there's no medical scientific research on psychedelics, or at least there wasn't for a very long time, is because the government shut it all down, right?
The government said, these are evil drugs, no scientist is allowed to use them.
And that was part of it.
But that wasn't the whole picture.
There was a group in Maryland called the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, and they were the last group doing psychedelic research up until 1977, and then there was a big gap until Rick Strassman started his DMT studies in the late 80s, early 90s.
So at the time that they were doing that psychedelic research that ended in 1977, they were just running out of funding.
There wasn't a lot of interest in what they were doing.
There was no pharmaceutical future for the therapy.
No pharmaceutical companies were trying to commercialize any of it.
They weren't seeing clients and making money off of it.
And the university and the funding bodies weren't all that interested in it.
And it just kind of died a sad, slow death of deprivation of funds and lack of public interest and enthusiasm.
It wasn't like everyone was behind this and then the hammer of the government destroyed it.
And I think that's a really important thing to remember because pharmaceutical companies are extremely controversial.
Like everyone hates pharmaceutical.
They're pretty much ubiquitously despised by all people.
But when you think about these times of really fertile, amazing psychedelic research in the 1960s, one reason that there was so much And one reason that there was so much interest is because these were being paid for by pharmaceutical companies and there was hope that they could actually be developed and sold as medicines, which is the end goal in our medical system, right?
And so I think that as controversial as it is, the pharmaceutical interest in these substances is going to provide support that has been entirely absent until recently and is going to really have the potential to push things forward.
Yeah, I think soldiers, athletes, and anything that's in the public realm where people are really aware of brain damage, aware of PTSD, aware of a lot of different things that psychedelics can be used to help, I think that's going to really sort of motivate the public to be more enthusiastic about it or be more open-minded about it.
Because I think for the longest time, people had this idea of psychedelics as being just people that want to escape reality.
And if there's more peer-reviewed studies, there's more accredited, whether it's universities or research centers or someone that people respect, that's doing work on these things where you can see it in the New York Times, see it in...
See it in some newspaper that you respect, see it on CNN, wherever it is, and sort of slowly shift public perception that these things, they're not just for hippies.
But that is one of those weird, in terms of like the subjective experience of the people that reported, that they didn't find any difference in placebo?
There's so many variables when it comes to people and how they view the world, how they interface with society.
To say there's no difference between one person taking microdose versus another person taking a placebo, it's so hard to make that study accurate.
Because what are you looking for?
What's changed?
And what's going on in your life while this is going down?
Are you breaking up with your girlfriend?
Have you lost your job?
Is this all taking place during the pandemic when you have no hope?
What's going on?
versus what's going on with the other person that's taking the microdose or the other person has taken the placebo.
There's just so many variables when it comes to human beings.
It's almost like the only way to do it correctly is to have clones of the same person living the same life and give one of them microdose and give another one placebo.
Well, this is one of the problems, I think, is just even defining microdosing.
Because for some people it might be a low, a very subtle trip, and for some people they define it as a sub-psychedelic experience.
And so there's going to be a lot of work that's to be done on optimizing those sorts of effects.
I mean, the other thing is when we talk about microdosing, we're just talking about microdosing these two common psychedelics, psilocybin and LSD.
But Alexander Shulgin, you know, You know, he was doing a lot of research on maybe their psychedelics that just are less psychedelic in general that have a little bit of that sort of effect that people are looking for with a microdose of LSD, where it's maybe a mild stimulant, maybe produces a small amount of empathy or just a small maybe produces a small amount of empathy or just a small change of one kind or
I mean, this has even been approved medicinally in the past, both with when Ibogaine was a pharmaceutical product under the name Lamberine in France.
Really?
Yeah, and it was essentially pharmaceutical ibogaine microdosing.
That wasn't psychedelic ibogaine that they were prescribing.
No, no, you can find there's like French adventure novels that are like, as I ascended the volcano, I took two Lamberine to give myself the strength to reach the summit.
You know, it was just a stimulant that people took.
There was no discussion whatsoever of Ibogaine as a psychedelic.
I think that it is at 20 milligrams, 20 to 25 milligrams, it exerts no psychedelic effect whatsoever and feels almost like a mild stimulant and maybe almost like a mild antidepressant.
And another one is there used to be an MDMA-type compound called alpha-ethyltryptamine, now a Schedule I-controlled substance in the United States, that was approved in the United States as an antidepressant under the brand name Monase, and it was basically like a microdose of MDMA. This was done pharmaceutically in our country, but it's totally forgotten about.
I was watching this documentary, and I forget where it is, where they were chopping these trees down, where they were using them to synthesize MDMA. Do you know what I'm talking about?
It's a Cambodian tree that doesn't have a common English name, and it's a source of saffron, which is a precursor for MDMA. They're just hacking that forest down so people can trip.
And this is what happens in an unregulated market.
This is, I think, one of the really unfortunate things about the way people talk about drugs.
Your drug use is destroying the forest.
Your drug use is killing people in Latin America.
And it's not people's drug use, exactly, that's causing those problems.
It's a totally unregulated market where, because it's all illegal, People can do whatever they want.
It's done by criminals.
There's no oversight whatsoever.
So if somebody wants saffron, why not deforest Cambodia to get all the saffron?
And there are other ways to do it.
That just happens to be a cheap way that proliferates in a black market with no regulation.
Neil Young had something recently about black pepper I had heard, and I was wondering now that this is a great time to bring it up, that if you're too high, it takes away the paranoia feelings.
But is there any unusual biodiversity issues, like some weird things about your own chemical, like your chemistry, that would stop THC edibles or marijuana edibles from working on you?
But THC itself, of course, is active without conversion to 11-hydroxy, so that wouldn't explain it.
Maybe you're a rapid metabolizer in terms of producing some kind of inactive form of THC. There's variables in terms of how well people sober up from things, right?
We're metabolically different organisms, depending on where your ancestors are from, depending on a number of different factors, also depending on the history of things that you've subjected yourself to can upregulate or downregulate certain enzymes.
Yeah, that's the weirdest thing, is watching someone who has a low tolerance to alcohol just drink a little bit and get blasted, and you're like, what is going on?
It should be illegal or it's evil or something like that.
I just think that, all things considered, there's a lot better things out there, especially compared to cannabis or something, which is, I think, vastly superior.
He's so brave, like the way he talks about things.
For the guy to be a professor at Columbia and to just be openly stating, I enjoy heroin and it makes me feel good, it makes me compassionate, you know, and he uses pure heroin.
And I was working on my show for such a long time, and you're doing it in isolation, and then it comes out and you're wondering what people think of it.
So I was name searching myself and saw some Reddit thread of all these people kind of insulting Karl Hart.
And I just felt like I think the average person doesn't get it.
I don't think they understand exactly how brave Karl Hart is.
Because I have traveled around the world.
I have interviewed countless academics.
I've been in academic circles throughout my life.
Drug use of the sort that he describes is extremely common.
It's extremely common.
But being honest about it is incredibly rare and is commendable.
And if more people were like him, I think a lot of these stigmas would be reduced.
And I've even heard people say, well, how dare he reduce the stigmas associated with these things?
That's cruel.
If you reduce the stigmas, you're hurting people.
They should be stigmatized.
No, they should not be stigmatized.
Maybe they shouldn't be encouraged, but if you find yourself in that sort of situation, you shouldn't be ashamed.
You should see it as, if anything, a medical problem or a social problem, not something that you need to be hated for.
Right, because we don't hate people for being alcoholics.
We praise them for their sobriety.
When they get their 90-day chip or whatever they get, people say, they look at you like you're some sort of a fool because you couldn't handle alcohol.
They go, oh, he was an alcoholic, but he sobered himself up.
Yeah, you know, heroin use is just so stigmatized.
And I'm not a heroin user.
I haven't used heroin.
But I did have a morphine drip once when I had a surgery.
It was awesome.
Oh my god, I kept hammering that thing.
You press a button to give you a morphine drip.
I had knee surgery.
And I was in the hospital and I was on this perpetual motion machine.
You ever seen one of those?
Because I had an ACL reconstruction, arterial cruciate ligament.
It's a big injury.
They take a piece of your patella tendon, a piece of your shin bone, and a piece of your knee, and they open you up and screw them and drill them in place.
Pretty fucking painful.
And so while you're lying in bed, my knee is on this thing, and it's going, like, bending and straightening my knee over and over and over again.
And I'm lying in there, and they give you a drip.
And anytime you want, just press that button, and you get a little drip of morphine.
I understand why people are doing this because it remains very controversial and so you want some kind of justification.
But you should remember at the end of the day that no justification should be required.
And if you get too lost in the justification, you might forget why you're doing it in the first place.
Like, an analogy that I've been thinking about for years, like, it's kind of like a long analogy, so it's gonna be like a one-minute analogy, but, like, it would be, it would be like if, um...
In the 60s, people started listening to music for the first time.
And they decided that it was associated with the counterculture, anti-war movement.
Some people were listening to music too loud and causing irreversible damage to their hearing.
And so medical doctors said, okay, this is clearly a problem.
This person is deaf as a result of listening to music.
We've got to regulate it.
We've got to prohibit it to protect people because it's a problem.
And then on top of that, there's an added advantage that because everyone is going to continue listening to music, we can selectively prosecute the people that we want to because it's a little crime that everyone is committing.
And then that keeps going for years and people continue listening to music and playing music.
And they create their own biases where they say it's OK to listen to music.
It's just as long as you don't perform it or record it.
It's all right as long as you're just a listener.
And then eventually some scientists get together and they all say that they've never listened to music before because if they had, it would somehow bias their understanding.
So they've never listened to music before but they've looked at old pre-prohibition information on music and they've decided scientifically that it is in fact very good and can be used as a medicine.
And then everyone embraces it as a medicine and says, oh, I just listened to music today.
It was so wonderful for my anxiety.
It was really fantastic.
And that would be great, and that would be good, and that would be a way to make music legal again.
But it also would entirely miss the point that music doesn't have to be a medicine.
And to be clear, you could do these studies with music.
Music is a medicine.
There is music therapy.
I'm sure you could design a study where music treats neurodegenerative diseases or Music treats depression.
I guarantee it.
And you could get positive results, and you could then say that music is a medicine, but So what?
It doesn't need to be a medicine.
And I just want people to, as much as I enjoy this new medicalization and the decriminalization that's taking place, I just hope people remember that it doesn't need to be any of those things.
And this history of justification is ultimately something that we are doing because we're afraid, afraid to acknowledge the fact that we should be free to do whatever we want, regardless of whether or not it's good.
You know how many people fuck up their back and tear shoulders for CrossFit?
Well, we need to stop CrossFit.
You could say that about anything.
And the problem is...
A lot of what you get when you have people telling people to not do things is people that don't have any experience in those things telling people not to do them.
And whether they're drugs or whether they're physical activity or whether they're...
There's a lot of different things that people do that you could...
Racing cars, you could deem them detrimental.
And I am a proponent of freedom.
And I don't think there's any all-knowing, all-seeing being that's wiser, that understands the correct way for all human beings to move forward in life and the correct decisions to make.
There's no father figure.
There's no godlike...
There's pros and cons to everything.
You could abuse almost everything you do.
If you show that people, if they jog a little bit every day, it actually turns out to be good for you.
But ultramarathons we have to outlaw.
Because these people are getting rhabdomyelosis.
They're pissing out Diet Coke.
They look terrible and they're dying.
No.
You've got to be able to do whatever you want to do.
You're a human being.
And you are finite, no matter what.
It's not like if you die, the entire world suffers some irreversible loss and millions of people starve to death because you decided to run 100 miles.
No.
It's you and your life Do what you want, whether it's smoking marijuana or running 100 miles or doing whatever the fuck you want.
And unless we embrace that, we're going to see more of this nanny state nonsense that we've been dealing with since Prohibition in this country.
And we're dealing with it right now.
There's a lot of things that will never kill you that are illegal.
Cannabis being one of the big ones, because that's the most preposterous one.
And I think that the one thing that people have to be very careful about and remember is that it always seems like a good idea to make something illegal.
That's why it happens.
It seems like a good idea.
So in the time since we last spoke, over 70 drugs have been scheduled.
Well, they're all bad drugs, so don't worry about it.
They're all the bad ones.
None of the good ones.
It's just fentanyl derivatives.
They're the bad ones.
So, of course, there's schedule one.
Who would want to defend some new fentanyl derivative?
Fentanyl kills people.
We've got to make them all illegal.
And there's synthetic cannabinoids.
Those are horrible.
Make them all illegal.
Those are the bad drugs.
And some stimulants as well.
Those are terrible.
Make those illegal, too.
Well, it's very hard to undo these things, and it seems like the right thing to do when you do it, but then think of how hard it is to put the toothpaste back in the tube afterwards.
It doesn't go very well, and people are not good at acknowledging mistakes, at acknowledging when they've done something wrong.
It took the church, like...
350 years to apologize to Galileo.
It takes a while to acknowledge that you make these mistakes.
And so I think that when we're caught up in a hysteria, this is another thing that I really appreciate about Karl Hart, is when we're caught up in a hysteria, it always seems like the right thing to do to crack down.
Because of course, of course opioids are bad.
Of course.
Of course.
Of course we've got to make them illegal.
They kill people.
We have to make them all illegal.
People are dying as a result.
But that's always been the way that we thought.
That's what we thought with psychedelics in the 60s.
That's what we thought with PCP derivatives in the 70s.
And then we realized that we'd actually made a mistake, that maybe the science was flawed, that maybe we hadn't fully interrogated the therapeutic benefits that these substances have.
It's fascinating, but it's also not entirely surprising because life is difficult and it promotes a little bit of joy and a little bit of focus and a little bit of relaxation in a very difficult existence.
Spotify is slowly but surely getting its shit together when it comes to video playback But yeah, this was a boring section of the podcast and I apologize for anybody that's freaking the fuck out right now screaming in their car.
unidentified
You guys were having a really interesting conversation and Rogan, you fucked it up!
I mean, I remember when I was in high school, I went to a very progressive high school, and at that time, in the early 2000s, there was a magazine called Ad Busters.
It was very popular.
Do you remember this?
And it was kind of like...
No, I don't.
All these ideas about the way advertising affects people were being talked about constantly.
Advertising causes eating disorders.
Advertising of junk food and soft drinks causes obesity.
We need to regulate advertisements so that women don't have a negative self-image and people aren't obese.
And I remember thinking that it was a complicated scenario because, of course, I do believe that advertisements have these effects on people.
But I also believe that advertising has become a totally ubiquitous part of our culture that is inescapable.
And no amount of censorship will ever protect us from the advertising that pervades every dimension of our existence.
And so it is our responsibility to Protect ourselves as much as possible, because we'll never truly be free.
You know, so you get rid of Joe Camel, and you regulate the way tobacco can be advertised, and it's probably the right thing to do.
I'm not entirely sure.
It seems intuitively like it's not a bad idea not to advertise cigarettes to children.
Yeah, inhaling many milliliters of propylene glycol daily.
I mean, yes.
If I had to bet on...
Vaping at least a regulated product assuming that there isn't some type of heavy metal contamination or vitamin E acetate or something like that in it.
Versus smoking tobacco, I would bet that vaping is safer.
But the other thing, and this is something that Karl Hart doesn't talk about very much, and this is maybe one thing that we would disagree on, is I do think that dependence in and of itself is undesirable and is disempowering.
And I'm not talking about addiction.
I'm not talking about, you know, destroying your life, destroying your family, professional.
I'm just talking about being dependent on anything.
Habits.
Having a habit is undesirable and should be avoided.
He's talked about it, but I think what he's trying to do is downplay the effects of withdrawals and a lot of the things that people associate with opioid addiction and a lot of other things.
The way he describes it...
I mean, I don't know if he's right because I've never gone through it, but he describes it as like going through the flu.
I don't want to just say, like, I don't know about that.
But I certainly have known many, many people.
I've lived with someone who struggled very severely with opioid addiction, and it's just context-dependent.
So Carl Hart has a section in his book where he describes Intentionally becoming dependent on opioids, and then almost as a stunt, withdrawing immediately before giving a talk on opioid addiction.
And I think that's an interesting idea, and I don't doubt that he was able to do that, but there's a big difference between doing something for Three weeks, three months, three years, depends on the dose, depends on the support network, depends on pre-existing psychological and medical conditions that may be contributing to the user's choice to use this stuff in the first place.
You know, for a lot of people, it might start with back pain or something like that, and you start taking the opioid and it helps, you become dependent.
And then at the time that you have to stop, you haven't done anything to address the root cause of the back pain.
So if you stop, you have all the back pain that you started with, which may even be worse than it started, and you've got to deal with opioid withdrawal.
And it makes it very hard for people.
So I do have, you know, a lot of compassion for the people to get mixed up in that.
That said, and I got into trouble for saying this last time I was on the podcast, I made a point that I felt the way that opioids were discussed, everyone acted like it was a big surprise that they were addictive.
Like, we found evidence that Purdue knew oxycodone is addictive, and they knew this all along.
And this is the thing that I find a little bit difficult to stomach.
People have known that opioids produce dependents of one kind or another for hundreds of years, if not thousands.
The first medically reported cases of oxycodone addiction that I'm aware of are from 1914. In 1914, there was a medical term for oxycodone addiction called eukedilism, because the brand name for oxycodone at that time was eukedil.
And this was something that has been known about for over a century.
Now, I'm not suggesting that every medical doctor has read whatever obscure literature that I'm aware of.
I know that they haven't, and that's fine.
But what I find a little bit off-putting is how could I, as a high school student in Massachusetts, have had an intuitive awareness that Percocet was a recreational drug, that Percocet was a drug that if you get a prescription for it, that's going to be fun.
That's going to be an enjoyable one.
And then somehow these people that studied medicine were so unaware.
And almost all of the blame has been placed on the pharmaceutical companies who, make no mistake, behaved very badly.
They did what pharmaceutical companies do.
They tried to sell their product and they manipulated.
I mean, they infiltrated medical education.
They changed the very way that pain was conceptualized and went from saying that it was something that you had to deal with to something that should be treated compassionately, and it caused a fundamental philosophical shift in the medical community.
That's an impressive maneuver for them to have pulled off, but still.
At what point are doctors responsible for not recognizing that their patients have become dependent?
And at what point are people responsible for recognizing their own dependence?
If we put all of the blame on pharmaceutical companies, it's ultimately a very disempowering position that won't protect us in the future.
Because there will always be somebody trying to sell us something that's bad for our health.
And to some extent, for better or worse, it will always be our responsibility to protect ourselves.
But they're very similar drugs that are very, very well characterized medically.
This is not some newfangled thing that no one, this is not some, you know, RNA therapy that just was invented a year ago that no one had ever known about, that no one could have anticipated.
anticipated.
These are simple derivatives of morphine that have been known about medically for thousands of years.
And so the idea that no one could have predicted this is something that I find a little bit hard to stomach.
And I think that it's a dangerous oversimplification of the phenomenon that will ultimately harm people.
Because if you don't take, if you don't, if you just point a finger at a bad guy and say, oh, it's the bad guy's fault, and then it's easier for you, You don't have to think that your physician was maybe complicit in something that was damaging to your mental and physical health.
And so it was all Mortimer Sackler cackling and counting his blood money at Purdue Pharmaceuticals.
You know, I don't buy that narrative as being as simple as it is.
Yeah, there is an infantilization of our society that we've gone, like, you know, we didn't even know that cigarettes were bad for you.
People have known cigarettes are bad for you for a long time.
We didn't even know that this could, like, people don't take responsibility for what they put into their body and they assume that these people that are taking it Had no knowledge whatsoever.
We don't put any onus on them to do any research, especially today with the internet.
You know, you can kind of research basically anything while you're waiting to go into the doctor's office.
Or while you're sitting in the doctor's office.
You know, Johnny, I'm going to give you Vicodin.
You're like, Vicodin?
Hold on a second, doctor.
And you can just Google that and go, hmm, seems like Vicodin could be an issue.
Well, although that's totally hypocritical for me to say that because I was just talking about how we have to have personal responsibility and not be endlessly seduced by the pervasive advertisements that surround us.
But I'm conflicted about it because that also seems like a little bit weird because they're medical interventions.
It could maybe be advertised to doctors, but it's really complicated.
Here's a good example that is not widely known, that I think is a useful point of contrast between what happened with oxycodone in the United States and what happened in France with a far less known story.
So in France, there was an antidepressant called amineptine that, unlike most antidepressants, it had a mild stimulant action.
I've actually used it myself.
It's pleasant.
It's not highly stimulating at the therapeutic dose.
I believe it's a low-potency dopamine reuptake inhibitor, but it's been a while since I've looked at the literature, and as I'm about to get to, this pharmaceutical company has a history of misrepresenting the pharmacology of the substances that they sell.
So amineptine comes out.
It's well received by people with depression because it produces a little bit of a stimulant effect.
In the United States, we have a drug called Welbutrin, which is also a stimulant antidepressant, and many people I like that aspect of it, because it doesn't just treat the depression, it gives you a little bit of energy to maybe tackle the tasks before you.
Okay, fine.
The problem is that people start using extremely, extremely large doses of emineptine, and they're addicted to it.
That's maybe a problem in and of itself, arguably, depends on your position on that matter, but it's also hepatotoxic, so they're damaging their liver.
And it produces this monstrous dermatological toxicity where people have these kind of grotesque lesions on their body, on their genitals and face as a result of taking this antidepressant.
So that's not good.
Amineptine is removed from the market and replaced with a non-addictive alternative.
An old story.
And this new drug is called T-neptine.
T-neptine is interesting because the stated mechanism of action is that it is a serotonin reuptake enhancer.
Not inhibitor, enhancer.
It has the opposite mechanism of Prozac in every conventional SSRI antidepressant.
I even wrote a little article for Playboy years ago about, like, gee whiz, the mind sure is strange that you can have these two antidepressants with opposing pharmacologies that both exert a therapeutic effect.
Hmm.
As it turns out...
The pharmaceutical company, Servier, had not disclosed that T-neptine also was a full agonist at the mu opioid receptor, that it basically shared a pharmacology with morphine and heroin.
And this was a really important thing, because there were all these people taking this antidepressant, and they were saying, yeah, this stuff works really well, but, you know, I used to use heroin, and, like, I swear, this stuff feels good.
It feels kind of like heroin to me.
And people on different forums would say, like, oh, sure, sure, sure.
It feels like heroin, but it's serotonin reuptake and answer.
That's that.
And this went on and on.
There were people that would take huge, huge quantities, saying, like, I don't know what it is about this stuff.
I'm itchy.
My pupils are pinpoints, and I'm extremely, extremely high when I take this serotonergic antidepressant.
Eventually, somebody overdosed on the stuff, which is actually pretty safe in high doses.
And a physician injected them with naloxone or Narcan, the opioid antagonist, and it reversed the effect.
So I remember reading that case report and thinking, huh.
Wow.
This serotonergic drug produces an intoxication that is reversed by an opioid antagonist.
Curious.
Very strange.
Then an acquaintance at Columbia started actually looking at the pharmacology of this stuff.
This guy's name is Andrew Krugel.
And he found that it is primarily exerting its effect via the mu opioid receptor, and that the pharmaceutical company had not told people that.
So all these people taking what they thought was a serotonergic antidepressant were actually taking an opioid.
This was never approved in the United States.
But that is an instance, I think, of, you know, really unacceptable pharmaceutical deception.
Where you're telling someone that a drug does one thing, and in fact it does something entirely different.
With oxycodone, I feel like it's a little bit harder to make that argument because it had been used for over a hundred years, and because people already knew that it was addictive.
They were making an argument that it was less addictive because it was a time-release formulation, which is also a complicated thing because in many instances, slow release of a compound does reduce its potential for abuse.
So not only does it sober you up, it precipitates instantaneous withdrawal.
So it's actually very uncomfortable for many people that use it because it's not just you take it and you're fine.
It's you take it and you withdraw and then there's actually a problem that's not talked about very much is sometimes people overdose, receive Narcan, go into withdrawal and then use again because they're in horrible pain from the withdrawal and the half-life of the Narcan can be shorter than some opioids so then by the time it wears off You have the original opioid in your system that caused the overdose in addition to the new opioid that you ingested to reverse the withdrawal that was precipitated
So what most people don't know about Imodium is that it's a super potent opioid and It's an opioid that was designed so that it never enters the brain So it exerts all the effects of an opioid on your peripheral System, but not any of the CNS effects that cause euphoria at extremely high doses It can actually enter the brain, but that's a separate does it work as a pain reliever for people?
I No, unless you take extraordinarily high doses.
Its main effect is on intestinal motility, and so it causes the constipation of an opioid without any of the psychological euphoria-inducing effects.
It's a beautiful piece of drug design and medicinal chemistry.
And so that can mitigate the gastrointestinal symptoms of opioid withdrawal.
There's also a number of sedatives, benzodiazepines, different things that people will take to address this or that concern.
There's also tapering.
There's also ibogaine.
There are definitely...
You're not hopeless if you find yourself in the midst of this.
There's also, you know, just different opioids, right?
We talk about opioids as this monolithic entity, like opioids are bad, opioids do this.
Well, they're a pharmacological class that have, you know, a very diverse potential in all sorts of different directions.
The same chemist at Columbia was doing research on This antidepressant opioid that I was describing.
And what was funny about it is that even though the pharmacology was to some extent misrepresented by the pharmaceutical company, it did exert an antidepressant effect.
And he was even able to show that it had certain spinogenesis-inducing effects as well, so it causes growth of dendritic spines on neurons.
Cool.
But when he was trying to get investors interested in some derivatives of TNF-tine that he made, We're good to go.
It's alright for everyone to use opioids as much as they want, and that's that, which was kind of what happened at the beginning of the so-called opioid crisis, right?
And then there's a compensatory backswing where you say, wait a second, look, all these people died.
There are all these problems with dependence.
We can't do this.
We've got to regulate them.
Then the chronic pain community...
We'll come out and say, wait a second, we need this stuff to function.
You can't cut us off from opioids just because of this epidemic of people that were misusing it.
And it goes back and forth endlessly.
And it's really, there is no answer.
Like, I'm sure, I would like to think what I've just said to you right now is a pretty balanced perspective, but I'm sure that there'll be enormous numbers of people that are angry at me about this because they think they're evil or they think that I was too hard on them.
It's a really polarizing issue, like absolutely everything these days.
Well, what you just said, this rant, is one of the reasons why you must stay in media.
You have to, because there's not a lot of people that can articulate the pharmacological effects and just the pros and cons and the negative and positive in a balanced way, like you just did.
Because you're being very objective about these things, and just fact-based, science-based analysis.
Of the pros and cons and the realities of the use and the efficacy of these drugs.
This is important, Hamilton.
There's not a lot of people that know what you know.
Because these hysterias have never helped anyone, and they've caused incalculable human suffering.
We can talk about the tragedies of the so-called crack epidemic, but then that's what generated the sentencing disparity.
And I think it's safe to say that the number of people that have been imprisoned And have had their lives destroyed, have had their families torn apart, have had their employment opportunities dashed to pieces because they had a small nugget of alkaloidal material from a South American plant.
It's nuts, and it didn't help anyone.
Same thing with PCP. Here's a good story.
Here's a really good one.
So, do you know about Charles Innes?
Have you heard about this guy?
Charles Innes is the quintessential drug scare story character.
He's the man who smoked angel dust and tore out both of his eyes and went completely insane.
He's the poster child for the horrors of PCP. Hunter S. Thompson wrote about Charles Innes in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, talking in a few different sections.
It's like in the news.
It was happening in 1971 at the same time that he was writing Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
Topical story about the horrors of drugs in America, right?
And this is talked about endlessly.
It's got a lot of media at the time.
Don't smoke PCP. You could end up like Charles Innes, the man who tore out his eyes.
So one dark and stormy night, I get an email from Charles Innes, and I think, there's no way.
First of all, this was maybe a decade ago, and I didn't know anything about even how blind people use computers.
So I thought, Charles Innes, the man who tore out both of his eyes, is watching my TV show and is writing me an email?
This has got to be a troll.
There's no way this is the same Charles Innes.
So we start talking, and eventually we talk on the phone, and I realize that this is indeed the real Charles Innes.
And surprise, surprise, the story is completely, completely different from what was described in the media.
What really happened to him isn't a story about the horrors of PCP at all.
It's a story about the horrors of police brutality.
It is something that I don't think has ever even been publicly discussed.
He was kind of, I think, a low-level weed dealer in Baltimore in the 60s, and he got set up by some cops.
They wanted to trap him in a buy.
So they said, listen, we've got this amazing hash, and we want to sell it to you.
We've got the best price, but to make sure that you're not a cop, You have to bring a little cocaine with you.
And if you bring the cocaine, we'll know that you're legit.
So he has no idea that he's being set up.
He goes to this buy, he looks at the hash, and he decides that it is of inferior quality, and he doesn't want to buy it.
And he says, yeah, sorry, I'm not interested.
I don't want this stuff.
So he leaves the room and gets tackled and arrested, and they search him and find the cocaine and say, well, you've still got cocaine on you, even though you didn't buy this cannabis.
And he says, well, you can't do that.
That's entrapment.
The only reason I had this cocaine is that you insisted that I bring it.
So he gets a lawyer and he succeeds in defending himself.
The charges are dropped.
But he pisses off the Baltimore Police Department in doing this because he's just embarrassed them.
So some local guy who he thinks is a police informant...
Calls him up and says, you know, listen, man, like, I am sorry about what happened to you, but I've got a gift for you.
It's this drug, it's like acid, and it's sprayed onto parsley, and I've got a lot of it, so I want to give some to you.
And he said, is this angel dust?
If it is, I'm not interested.
And he said, no, it's not angel dust, it's not PCP, this is some amazing new psychedelic, and it's going to blow your mind.
So, like, take it, it's good.
So he takes this canister of plant material and puts it on his shelf or something.
Then an hour later, the police raid his apartment.
He realizes that he's been set up again.
He runs to the canister and eats all of the contents of it, knowing that they're going to arrest him for it.
And PCP is a powerful dissociative anesthetic.
So he loses consciousness.
He blacks out entirely.
They lock him up.
Without any kind of medical supervision.
And in his delirious state, he doesn't tear out his own eyes, but he damages his eyes severely enough that he has never recovered his vision.
He scratches his eyes in some way.
And this is the sort of story that will be brought up as a don't smoke PCP story.
someone who is entrapped, neglected, abused, has nothing to do whatsoever with PCP. - That's horrible. - And this happens all has nothing to do whatsoever with PCP. - That's horrible. - And And this happens all the time.
That's not an extraordinary story.
Drugs are such an amazing scapegoat.
They're so good as tools to diminish people, to show that they're weak, that they're bad, that they're of low moral character of one kind or another.
And the moment that we abandon all those stigmas, the moment they can't be used as a tool against us anymore.
And I think that not only are there, you know, it's not even about good and bad cops.
I think that they will have a corrupting influence on law enforcement.
I think that it could make a good cop into a bad cop because it breaks down the idea of protecting people.
Yeah.
Implicit hypocrisy in the enforcement of these laws.
We are arresting people for victimless crimes that will distort your thinking inevitably.
It has to.
There's no way it couldn't.
And there's only two people, two types of people in our culture that we allow to talk about the world in terms of good guys and bad guys, and that's cops and children.
With children, it's because they're not developed sufficiently to have a complex understanding of human behavior, and so they're bad guys, and the bad guys do bad things, and the good guys save people, and they do good things.
With comps, it's psychologically necessary for them to have those moral binaries, because...
If you don't, how would you ever do your job?
How would you ever arrest someone for stealing an iPad or something like that if you thought, wait a second, this guy has no money.
This guy grew up in a part of the country with a broken public education system.
He has no opportunities.
He has no role models in his life.
He has nothing to look forward to.
He maybe needs this.
Maybe this could help him out.
Is this really a bad guy?
Of course not.
It's not a bad person at all.
But if you think that, then you would never be able to arrest anyone because you'd only be thinking about the fact that no one I mean, this is like an important philosophical idea that I don't think is discussed enough.
This is really this good guy, bad guy mentality is permeating our culture.
And, you know, there's like an interesting Socratic dialogue that isn't talked about all that much called Gorgias.
And in it, Socrates is just articulating this basic idea that no man knowingly does wrong, that there aren't bad guys There aren't bad guys.
And I know that that's a slippery slope, because if you go down that road too far, then you never punish anyone for everything, because you understand that every action is justifiable in the mind of the perpetrator, right?
But I think it is important to remember that when you're talking about these things.
We had a conversation and he said that he believes that in the future one of the main things that we're going to look back on when we look at this culture and we're going to feel like we made a tremendous mistake is punishing people.
For things that they've done and that, you know, the concept of determinism like that you really don't have free will and that you're what you think of as free will is your What all the accumulation of experiences and education and genetics and all the different things that have happened to you that led you to this point and the idea that you're responsible for all of them and And especially if you've been abused,
especially if you've been harmed and damaged and programmed in a terrible way, that he, as a psychologist, as someone who understands the mechanisms of the mind, said that he thinks that that's going...
Again, if we're going to have a polite society and a safe society, we can't just allow people to run around murdering people and raping people and mugging people, right?
We have to do something about it.
But he, and it's, again, like many things that have to do with human beings, it's very complicated.
So what do you do?
He doesn't have an answer as to what you do.
And I don't think anybody can because there's so many variables and so many people in so many different situations.
But he believes that that is going to be the one thing that we look back on.
And much like, you know, we look back on some of the barbaric treatment of people in the past, in the long, long ago past, that we're going to look back on people today.
This idea that you're responsible for all of your actions, particularly if like you're talking about someone who grew up in a poor, poor environment, crime ridden, drug riddled neighborhood filled with gangs, abused, and then they go on to commit a crime.
And in some ways that is so simplifying, a super complex issue.
And you're also dealing with a system that literally evolved out of slavery.
So you have a lot of these communities that have never recovered from slavery.
They went from slavery in the 1800s to the Jim Crow era to the civil rights era.
And still, in many places, whether it's Baltimore or whether it's Detroit or the south side of Chicago, you have these situations that exist in the same state in terms of, like, constant crime, constant violence, decade after decade after decade with no intervention.
Think about what we did.
And this is one of the things that kind of drove me crazy in the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic where they decided that they needed to spend trillions of dollars to relieve businesses.
Because these businesses have lost a lot of money during the pandemic and to relieve them But what about these really super impoverished communities have been fucked forever?
Like the idea that these people growing up in these communities that are filled with gangs and violence That they have the same shot at someone who's growing up in the suburbs of Massachusetts like that's nonsense.
That's crazy.
It's a crazy thought and And there's no emphasis at all in terms of a national dialogue of, look, this is our number one problem.
Too many people are fucked from birth.
Too many people are literally born into horrible environments where you have a very slim chance of ever overcoming all the influences of your environment and the people around you to get out.
And the idea that you're just going to figure this out on your own is crazy.
So few people do.
You look at the numbers of people that do figure it out, whether they're athletes or entertainers or whoever makes it out of the hood.
The idea that you should be able to just figure it out.
That's fucking crazy.
It's crazy.
This is the argument that I always had about this whole idea of making America great again.
It sounds great to make America great.
Why would that be bad?
Well, here's how you make America great.
Less losers.
How do you have less losers?
You've got to fix these places.
You've got to put massive resources and emphasis into figuring out how you fix these crime-ridden, impoverished communities.
Until we do that, blaming them the same way you would blame someone who grows up in a two-parent household where everyone's loving and caring, it's a totally different world, totally different programming, totally different environment.
And I remember the New York Times published this article that I found very annoying, where they said, like, new evidence suggests that...
Like, one of the early arrests of George Floyd for crack preceding his murder may have been done by a corrupt police officer, and maybe he didn't actually have crack after all.
And it's like, it doesn't matter whether he had crack or not.
It doesn't matter.
He should have never been arrested for it in the first place.
This is corruption regardless of whether or not he had crack.
That's like the difference between, you know, like if they catch you with a bong, you piece of shit, what are you doing?
You're getting too high.
You got a bong?
No, you can't take that.
A joint's fine, but a bong, you're getting radical.
What are you using, wax?
You fucking animal.
What are you doing?
Lock him up.
We caught your son with a bong.
No one would think that that's ridiculous.
The bong hits that you get when you get a big, deep bong hit, that's probably a more potent version of what you're going to get if you're just going to take a hit off a joint.
I spend so much time talking about this and the social aspects of it is because I genuinely do believe that this is one of the most pernicious and yet fixable things in our society.
There's a little, when, you know, when everyone is saying end white supremacy, it's like, of course, yeah, I agree.
End white supremacy.
That would be fantastic.
Let's end white supremacy.
But how?
How is that going to happen?
It's like saying end badness, end meanness.
I'm in favor of ending both badness and meanness and white supremacy.
But those are nebulous concepts that can't be addressed with any single intervention, whereas there are specific...
Problems associated with prohibition, healthcare, and...
I mean, you know, public education, teachers' unions, all sorts of things, which I know is a controversial issue, that have created an environment where it's very, very difficult to succeed, and it's very easy to have your life totally derailed by some little...
Yeah, well, this is why I think you need to stay in media, because I think there's many people that really, truly do not understand the difference between cocaine and crack.
They really don't understand that there is no difference.
They really don't get it.
So when they do hear this from someone like you who clearly understands what he's talking about, and then you realize that there still is this massive disparity in sentencing between having crack and having coke, and then you go, well, why is that?
That is almost, more than anything, emblematic of a much larger issue, which is that people with money have ways to get every single drug that a poor person uses legally.
He had cocaine that he would use as a topical anesthetic in some procedures, but also it is sometimes used off-label for treatment of cluster headaches.
I knew someone that had cluster headaches that had a prescription for cocaine.
Of course it is hilarious because, you know, 10 years ago, if you'd said, you know, listen, doctor, I'm really, really depressed and I snort ketamine three times a week and it's just amazing.
I have a friend who is a veteran who was just telling me on the phone yesterday about his use of ketamine, therapeutic use of ketamine through a physician, IV, and how much it benefited him.
He goes, in the beginning, it's just like alleviating your shitty feelings and depression.
He's like, that's the initial effects of it.
He said, but then it gets into this thing where he's sorting out his life.
And he's like recognizing problems that he has in his life.
And then...
Identifying fairly clear solutions that he can take action to fix those problems.
He's like, it gives me a clarity in terms of how to organize my life.
It was a really interesting conversation because I never had anybody put it to me that way.
And it was...
Very illuminating.
I know quite a few friends who have used ketamine over the last six or seven years or so from doctors.
Doctors prescribing them ketamine with varied effects.
Some of them, it really helped them a lot.
My friend Neil Brennan had a great take on it because he was one of the first person I ever heard do it and he's tried a bunch of different things for depression.
And he said, you know, I go to the doctor and, you know, he puts me in a chair and gives me an IV drip of ketamine.
I mean, this is another sad thing is that for so long we've tried to strip these effects out of drugs as much as possible because we've decided that it's an unacceptable side effect.
Well, is it unacceptable if it actually helps you not want to die?
Isn't it worth it to feel a small amount of intoxication?
I mean, for many people, obviously, it's also desirable.
But because we're so afraid of these altered states, we've tried to promote the creation of these sort of SSRI type drugs that don't really do all that much to your consciousness.
They have very subtle effects that maybe make you a little bit high.
I've taken Prozac for maybe three or – you actually have to take it for weeks to exert a therapeutic effect and I wasn't taking it as a treatment for depression.
I was taking it out of curiosity because I wanted to know what it felt like.
And we're going to increasingly in the future appreciate that many of these things that we use with one term are probably many very ultimately dissimilar clinical entities.
If you look at depression, you wonder, well, wait a second, why does this work for some people and not for other people?
Well, because they're different people, and they probably have different things that we're calling depression.
Yes, there are different symptoms that we can agree in tandem constitute depression, but that doesn't mean that depression is the same thing, is caused by the same thing, is treated with the same chemicals, which is another reason that I think it's really important to have a wide array of things available, because you never know what thing is going to be the thing that helps you.
Where ketamine has an N-methyl group, PCP has a piperidine ring, and then on the aromatic ring, ketamine has a chlorine atom, and then on the cyclohexane ring, ketamine has a ketone.
So there's like three points of modification.
It's modified on every ring, but the major...
Experiential difference is that ketamine has a shorter duration than PCP. Ketamine is kind of more psychedelic than PCP, arguably.
It's dose-dependent, so I don't think you can say that absolutely.
And ketamine has a sedative effect where it becomes very difficult to move.
You're not inclined to move at high doses at all.
Um, in fact, you basically can't walk at all at a high dose, which is funny because people talk about it as like a dance drug or a social drug.
But I think that's actually where ketamine becomes most interesting because at a lower dose, ketamine has a kind of alcohol-like effect.
It basically feels more or less like you've had a couple of drinks.
And then as the dose increases, you start to recede into yourself and enter something that's sort of similar to a lucid dream where the imagery becomes increasingly abstract.
Unlike classical psychedelics, it doesn't tend to have the same sort of There are many archetypal, classical, psychedelic experiences, like you've described, smoking DMT and seeing Buddhas made of electricity.
Often people will see religious imagery, M.C. Escher-like imagery, geometric imagery, things that feel beautiful, that feel connected to Humanity and nature.
There's something about the dissociative anesthetics that tends to be a bit more random, a bit weirder.
It doesn't feel like you're entering a numinous holy realm as much as like a different channel of consciousness that is...
Well, he also had a perception, and I don't know if you would agree with this or not, this is kind of a crazy thought, it's very unprovable, but he believed that not only are you dealing with the psychoactive effects of these psychedelics, but you are also dealing with all of the people's experiences that have ever taken these psychedelics.
Somehow or another.
He had this feeling that when you're tripping, you're not just tripping, like you alone tripping, but that you're somehow or another interfacing with all the various trips that all the people have done with whatever these drugs are.
And that was one of the things that I think he was referring to when he was talking about ketamine, because a relatively small amount of people, at least when he was alive, He had experienced ketamine.
Of course, Lilly was famous for his love of ketamine.
And Lilly liked to use ketamine in conjunction with the isolation tank.
That was his thing, apparently.
He liked intramuscular ketamine and sensory deprivation tanks.
Yeah, and like so many things that Terence McKenna said, it's both true and untrue.
I think it's untrue in a literal sense, but very true in a poetic sense, because the historical, cultural context of a drug is part of what you bring to that drug experience.
The molecule does not contain information.
The ketamine molecule does not bring an experience to you.
That is something that is generated in your brain by your consciousness.
And So, if you have a new substance that has no cultural associations, then maybe it was like that for him.
They think that this venom has some spiritual component derived from its association with the toad that makes it better than synthetic 5-MeO-DMT. Now, I've analyzed several samples of toad venom before 5-MeO-DMT was made illegal in the United States, and in terms of what you find if you inject it into a mass spectrometer, 5-MeO-DMT is the only psychedelic that's present.
In some samples, there might be trace quantities of another psychedelic called bufotanine, but it's a minuscule amount of a less potent molecule.
So predominantly, you have 5-ameo-DMT, which is likely the strongest naturally occurring serotonergic psychedelic.
And for conservation purposes, It's necessary that people stop milking toads because it's become too popular.
Mike Tyson's talking about it all the time.
I mean, it sounds ridiculous.
Mike Tyson could have an effect on conservation, but if a celebrity says they like something, that can have a tangible effect on the environment.
5-MeO-DMT does not strike me as something that you'd want to do a lot.
It's so terrifying.
That's probably the most terrifying experience I've ever had on psychedelics, because I ceased to exist.
Like, it's the one drug where I feel like when I took it, I wasn't there anymore.
I was gone until I came back.
Like, I felt like I didn't have thoughts.
I didn't have...
I knew I was experiencing the 5FEO DMT realm or whatever it was, but there was no context in terms of I didn't realize I'm on my couch sitting at home.
I was gone.
I was gone.
There's no visuals.
It was just this white, sort of pixelated, grayish-white, gone world.
And it was terrifying because it felt like death.
It was the one thing that felt the most like, oh my god, now I'm not here anymore.
But coming back from it, I think it was very valuable.
As I was returning, I remember thinking so much about...
So much about the bullshit way in which I talk.
I remember thinking that.
So much of the way I would communicate was not just me trying to get my thoughts across, but me trying to say things in a way that would be impressive, or in a way that would be flowery, or try to make it look like I was more intelligent than I was.
But I remember remembering that really clearly.
I've got to clean up the way I talk.
I'm full of shit.
Thinking that, as I was trying to figure out how I was going to describe this experience, I was realizing, as I was thinking, God, I've got to figure out how to describe this.
Boy, I talk like I'm full of shit.
So there was value in that.
I did it a few times.
I think I did it three times.
But it was terrifying every time.
Terrifying.
While you're gone, while you slip away, I remember just thinking, whoa, this is not good.
This is not good.
You feel like, oh my god, I fucked up.
I really died.
I really stopped being here.
And it also makes you think, maybe this is going to the light.
Maybe this is what they talk about.
When they talk about going to the light when you die.
Like, maybe you're having this kind of experience.
Because it's really disturbing.
But then, pretty peaceful when it's over.
Like, I felt pretty good when I came back.
But the concept of giving away all of my control of reality like that...
Experientially, chemically, it's, you know, psilocin is closer to DMT than 5-Meo-DMT is.
Mushrooms are closer, chemically speaking.
And, yeah, I think that it defies description in a different way than other psychedelic experiences do.
With something like DMT, it's difficult to describe because there is such an abundance of imagery and thoughts and associations that it's extremely difficult to communicate that to someone.
With 5-MeO-DMT, there's nothing.
And that's also difficult to communicate.
That you white out and there's an absence of everything completely.
And I think that DMT can be integrated into a normal life much more easily than 5-Meo DMT. Actually, I credit DMT with like sort of, I talked about the sort of COVID denial that I had at the beginning of the pandemic where I was, you know, I can't stop making my TV show.
We're all going to get it anyway.
We can't just stop We can't shut down the world.
We can't stop flying.
And then I smoked DMT and had this image of MC Escher's angels and demons.
But instead of angels and demons, it was pangolins and horseshoe bats.
Oh, whoa!
And came out of it and thought...
Of course I feel horrible.
Of course this is depressing and confusing.
This is actually one of the worst things that has happened in my lifetime and I just have to accept it now.
And I felt so much more at peace.
It just stripped away the denial and I could just say, alright, this is happening.
Yeah, and I resented some other people on my team who, in retrospect, were behaving in a way that was completely rational, where I was thinking, like, oh, come on, we're not going to go on this shoot, really?
But they were right, and I was wrong, and I had to stop.
Well, when you take psilocybin, there's a phosphate ester that's metabolically cleaved and that produces psilicin.
Psilicin is the active metabolite and psilicin is 4-hydroxy-DMT. So very, very similar.
The hydroxy group confers some protection from the enzyme MAO that degrades DMT, and the duration is obviously much longer, but they're very similar drugs, and experientially speaking, and chemically.
And the peak of a silicin experience is very similar to DMT as well.
DMT is almost like isolating the highest point of a mushroom trip and confining it to a very short, 10 to 15 minute period.
Because in smoking it, you wouldn't cleave the hydroxy group that confers this resistance to MAO, so it would allow it to enter the bloodstream in the brain more rapidly, but the metabolic degradation wouldn't be accelerated in any way.
Yeah, well, I mean, again, this is like when we talk about addiction as a monolithic entity.
We neglect to...
I mean, Jordan Peterson is not an average person.
Jordan Peterson is an extraordinarily unusual, weird person who had a very stressful life situation.
He had pre-existing...
Depression, right?
Then he went from being relatively unknown to being a household name and one of the most controversial people in the world.
Someone who is hated by countless people became very fashionable to treat him as if he was the devil incarnate for many liberal people.
And he I mean, imagine what that would feel like.
I think people don't have a lot of empathy for public figures.
And, you know, for example, if a politician is stumbling over their words, they'll say, oh, what an idiot that guy is.
What a fool.
But they're not remembering the pressure of knowing that every single word that you speak is going to be dissected by angry people who are going to go out of their way to try to demonstrate that you're an idiot and that you don't know what you're talking about, and that everything that you say will be misinterpreted in order to prove that you're some type of bad person.
And it stunts people's ability to communicate effectively.
It's very difficult.
Without having spoken with Jordan Peterson personally, but I've talked with his daughter about it a couple of times, I can totally understand why you would start using benzodiazepines.
You're giving talks all the time to enormous audiences.
You're extremely controversial.
You can assume that every single thing you do is going to be eviscerated in the press.
You need to relax a little bit.
And then you have these chemicals, I believe it was Klonopin that he was taking, that will just help you sleep at night at the very least, right?
And the problem Which is the case with most psychoactive drugs.
It's sort of the irony of pharmacology, is that you often end up with whatever it was that you were trying to treat worse than when you started out.
So he has all these problems.
They still exist.
He has a drug.
It temporarily relieves the stresses associated with it.
But then he becomes dependent on it, which is completely understandable because the stresses don't go away.
And so when you try to stop, you have all those stresses that drove you to use the drug in the first place, plus you have withdrawal, which is exacerbating those stresses, and it becomes very tricky.
In addition to that, it sounds like he has some pre-existing psychological conditions that he's publicly spoken about.
So it's very common, and I think benzodiazepines are some of the most insidiously addictive substances that are used in our culture.
Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we need to ban them or that no one should ever use them or that they don't have medical value.
But simply that they should be used with tremendous caution because it's very easy to get into trouble with them.
You know, like I said, I have never been a fan of opioids.
I don't really like them at all.
But when I was a teenager, I was prescribed Klonopin, and I experienced that as well.
And it's very, very difficult to stop even after a short period of use.
So you have to keep that in mind.
And physicians don't tell you that.
They say, And they say, you know, oh, you've got anxiety?
Here, take this.
And you take it, and then you realize when you stop that you can't sleep anymore, and you have something to do the next day.
You can't go a night without sleep.
You're doing a talk.
You have to sleep.
And so it becomes very difficult for people to disentangle themselves.
Again, there are ways out of it.
You're not doomed if you find yourself dependent on benzodiazepines.
You can, you know, use cannabis for sleep, or you could use something else in the transitional period, and you can taper off.
And there are Treatment strategies, and I've known lots of people that were dependent on benzodiazepines that now live normal lives, myself included.
And so it's not a death sentence by any means, but it's something that people should recognize and treat with caution.
And one thing that people, people often, myself included, are pharmacological reductionists when they talk about this.
So they say, like, oh, you know, you have some kind of...
You know, neuronal change or some change in receptor density or something that accounts for this.
But what also is changing is there's a psychological change where you're not developing healthy coping strategies.
And if you magnify that over months or years, those are months or years where you haven't figured out how to relax before bed, how to unwind, right?
Because you didn't have to.
You had a pill, and that pill was how you wound before bed.
And a normal person, and it allows you to cultivate bad habits, right?
So you can, maybe if you have a prescription for Ambien, it's not a big deal to have a cup of tea with dinner, 9pm, whatever.
You're going to take an Ambien that night, you'll go to sleep, doesn't matter if you have the tea.
Well, when you take Ambien out of the equation, you might have to be a little bit more careful about the choices that you make, and you have to have a little bit of additional discipline.
So long term, you also have, like I said, you have psychological...
Changes in your coping strategies, and that I think can be very hard for people.
And I think that when people talk about long-term problems as a result of drug abuse, they often assume that it's because the drug is neurotoxic and it damaged your brain.
But I think just as much, it can be an issue of not adequately developing certain coping strategies as a result of using that drug use.
Like, if you always used a benzodiazepine when you were anxious, you may have never learned how to appropriately take a breath and relax and Figure out your anxiety psychologically.
And then below that you have radon as well, but radon is unstable.
Xenon is the heaviest stable noble gas, and it's a trace component of our atmosphere.
It's in every breath that we take.
It's 0.000087% of the atmosphere.
And if you distill hundreds or really more like millions of liters of air into...
You compress it into a liquid under cryogenic conditions, and then you distill off all the different gases, all the nitrogen, all the oxygen.
You're left with a small fraction of this very heavy gas called xenon.
It's so heavy that you can almost pour it like a liquid and float a foil boat into it if you pour it into a gutrarium.
Wow.
Very weird stuff.
And it has the opposite effect of helium on your voice.
So if you inhale helium, your voice becomes a demon.
Yeah, you get this demonic, ultra-low voice.
Yeah, very interesting stuff.
But it's also a drug.
And when you inhale xenon, it produces this amazing, euphoric, anesthetic effect that is considered by some anesthesiologist to make it the perfect drug.
Because many drugs are...
Biotransformed in one way or another.
This is a single atom that is not altered in any way by the body.
You inhale it, you exhale it unchanged, and it's even used as a performance-enhancing drug in Russia, supposedly.
They'll put people in xenon tents, like oxygen deprivation tents, but then you have the added sort of euphoric, anesthetic properties of the xenon that supposedly allow athletes to work even harder.
Erythropoietin, also known as EPO, a hormone that encourages the formation of red blood cells.
Oh, okay, so it works like EPO. I wonder if you take it if you'll test positive for EPO. It's been banned in some places, I think, as a performance-enhancing drug.
And social, environmental, psychological factors as well.
Yeah.
That's why when people make statements like, heroin withdrawal is really, really bad, or heroin withdrawal is just like the flu, it's like, well, they're both true for different people, probably.
Benzodiazepines are, I would say, it's not so much that they are very difficult, but I think more than they are difficult, it's that we don't treat them like they're difficult.
We treat heroin like it's difficult.
It's dramatized constantly.
You know, we grow up on Trainspotting, Requiem for a Dream, Permanent Midnight, Christian F., all these movies that dramatize the horrors of opioid addiction and opioid withdrawal.
It's a part of our cultural diet that we have learned that this is horrible and is to be avoided at all costs.
The same is not true of benzodiazepines, which are just kind of stuff, right?
You have rappers talking about Xanax, and it's not about So Xanax is a benzodiazepine as well?
They really are a vast improvement over the drugs we have.
We're very spoiled right now.
most of our complaints revolve around things that are too good as opposed to too bad you go back to the barbiturates those would kill people accidentally like there would be people who weren't trying to who weren't we're just using them medicinally and would die you know because they had a drink or something the benzodiazepines are comparatively very safe chemicals uh
That's not to say that they are without danger, but they represent a pretty substantial medical advance, and that's the reason that they're so widely prescribed.
Like, it's very important to physicians not to prescribe drugs that will accidentally kill people.
That's another reason that SSRIs are so widely prescribed, is because, you know, Problems aside, they're very bad at causing fatal overdoses.
Yeah.
So that's kind of the idea is when they came out, this chemist Leo Sternbach invented the benzodiazepines.
And this was amazing.
This was unbelievable.
Because finally, you could have a drug that treated anxiety that didn't have this horrible risk of killing people that used it.
You know, this was when Jimi Hendrix died, Marilyn Monroe, these were all barbiturate associated deaths.
So this was actually considered like a huge boon to science, and their liberal prescribing reflects their relative safety, but there isn't enough of a discussion about the problems associated with cessation and withdrawal for long-term users.
Yeah, because like I was saying earlier, you have both a tolerance effect so that your compensatory mechanisms within the body have adjusted to respond to the To this newfound increased introduction of chloride ions into the cell, basically.
And so then when you remove this drug, your body has already made adaptations to the presence of the drug that then cause a more severe Excitatory response that can ultimately cause seizures and death in some instances.
But that's not common.
That does happen.
That does happen, but that's not reflective of the normal.
That's, you know, very high dose, long term use.
And even then, it's not That's not necessarily something that will happen.
That's also with very abrupt cessation.
A more responsible strategy is to taper the dose to avoid those sorts of effects as much as possible.
You could take Muscle Relax or Tizanadine that has a different pharmacology, or you could use cannabinoids, or you could use any number of things depending on What treatment is most appropriate for that person?
It just really depends.
I don't want to make any claims that there's a magic bullet that will treat people.
The main thing that you have to do, I think, is psychological work to try to cultivate habits where you're able to sleep better at night through exercise and you have better strategies for psychologically dealing with stress in your environment.
Those two things combined will, I think, do a lot more long-term to prevent you from using them again in the future.
But again, these problems mostly emerge with long-term high-dose use.
There's a lot of people that can use a benzodiazepine as a one-off thing on an airplane or before some other stressful event, and it doesn't cause those problems.
There's a big difference between taking something once or twice and taking something every single day for years.
It's that people get accustomed to the effects, the anxiety-relieving effects, and they start taking it a lot, and then next thing you know, you have a physical issue.
And that's why I think it's good to be as familiar with these things as possible, and it's good to understand them and their potential, but I also think it's good to try to not...
I have a habit of using any one of them regularly.
And I get very alarmed by the ones that I like, even if they're innocuous, like cannabis.
You know, I remember when I was in my 20s, I would hear all these people saying, oh, yeah, yeah, when I was in my 20s, I loved cannabis.
But the day I turned 30, I started getting panic attacks every single time I smoked it.
And I had to stop.
And I'd think, wow.
Well, I look forward to that day because it's just not happening for me.
I'm just enjoying it.
And it's only joyous and pleasant.
So is it ever going to get bad?
And the answer is no.
It never got bad.
But at some point I decided, all right, it's not going to get bad for me.
So it's just my decision now because it has...
I was never smoking all day.
I would just smoke a tiny bit before bed.
But still, I didn't like the fact that it was a habit.
That if I... If I was traveling somewhere, I would think, like, oh, maybe I won't sleep well that night, and that's no good.
I didn't like that feeling, and so I stopped completely for years.
And I think that that's a really useful exercise, even if nothing bad has happened, even if you enjoy it.
It's good to experimentally deprive yourself of things that are...
I observed something that I didn't even really know, which was that cannabis was more than anything, not even sleep.
It was a way of mitigating the anger that I felt.
There's so much reflecting anger in our society.
It's just endless.
You look at Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Instagram, any of these social media things, they're machines fed on human opinions and rage.
And people have almost optimized their communication to ensure this kind of Agitated engagement at all times, and it's very psychologically difficult.
I think people need to try to avoid that kind of behavior as much as they possibly can, because not only are you volunteering your finite time on Earth to feed a social media machine and advertisements with your own misery, You are preventing yourself from doing anything nice in the world, which will ultimately make you feel better.
Like, forget what effect it has on the subject of the bullying.
You know, if I look at anything, it's on Instagram.
And I don't read comments.
But sometimes people post interesting shit.
Interesting shit about their life.
Cool pictures.
I look at that.
But I don't read any of mine.
It's just...
I don't think it's healthy.
I think...
And then Facebook, I think, is the least healthy of them because people go on these long rants and then people below those long rants respond to those long rants and they get addicted to it and they're constantly checking it and battling back and forth with people on opinions and issues and politics and religion and social problems.
It's a piss-poor way of working things out with people, and it's the opposite of a podcast, in my opinion.
One of the best things about a podcast is the fact that we're locked in.
Like, when you and I are having this conversation, we're wearing headphones, so I hear your voice at the same volume that I hear my voice, which makes it much harder to talk over people because you're too aware that you're being rude, and you don't hear anything from the outside world, and we're looking at each other eye to eye, We're staring at each other across the table.
No electronics.
We're not looking at our phone.
We're not being distracted by anything.
To me, it's the best way to sort things out.
To figure out how a person really...
You get to know a person for real this way.
Without the bullshit that comes from social media interactions.
Which I think is the worst way to communicate with people.
And I think people do need to know about it because it's one of the most important.
I mean, she should win a Nobel Prize for this.
It is truly one of the greatest things that has ever happened to science.
Because when people talk about science, I think they don't really know what is science.
Is it the some knowledge of every living scientist?
Is it the opinion of the greatest expert?
What science really is, is a series of thousands and thousands and thousands of short papers.
When people talk about the body of scientific knowledge, they're talking about these short papers that up until recently have been paywalled.
So if you wanted to read even a two-page article, you'd have to pay $40 to do it.
She figured out a system where she could use the electronic resources of every major university to automatically download their entire catalogs of scientific literature and make it freely available to everyone in the world.
So it doesn't matter if you are in Kenya or Ethiopia or wherever.
You have access to the full digital resources of Oxford and Harvard and Yale.
And it is...
It's going to change.
I mean, it already has changed the world.
And, like, I guarantee 20 years from now, there will be people winning Nobel Prizes who will attribute the knowledge that they have to that website.
It is huge.
And so you think about something like this.
This is like...
Inestimable greatness from this website.
And everybody uses it.
Every scientist uses it right now.
And, like, we're in the presence of this extraordinary creation, and then people are just, like, spending their entire life insulting Trump on Twitter or whatever.
Like, it's just, like, we have to recognize what an amazing time it is, even though there are, of course, horrible, horrible things happening all around us.
Like, there are things like that that are so incredibly useful.
And I don't even know if it's, you know, I think it's worth talking about publicly because I think more people, I think even there are some scientists even that don't know about it.
But yeah, it's in danger because there was money to be made.
But it's really unfortunate because scientists aren't paid to write scientific articles.
So, if you write a peer-reviewed scientific article, that's something that you do, you send it off to the publisher, and then no one can read it unless they are also a scientist with either academic or institutional affiliations that allow them to access that journal.
The major publishers like Elsevier have come out against the creator, and I think she may even be in hiding as a result of that, because, yeah, I'm sure they would throw the book at her if they could.
Jesus.
But she succeeded.
She really succeeded, and this has been around for years.
And, you know, this is a life-changing, amazing contribution to science.
Oh, I just heard that was one of many things that he was trying.
I mean, I think that he was in a somewhat, you know, I think he was, you know, really, really seriously struggling and was trying a lot of different things to see what would stick.
And what xenon does when you inhale it is you exit reality and enter a state of pure bliss.
Sounds pretty good.
It's like nitrous oxide, if you've ever tried that, but nitrous oxide actually has some associated toxicity, kind of unusual toxicity, where it interferes with the metabolism of vitamin B12. None of that is present with xenon.
So, if you inhale nitrous oxide continuously for a long period of time, eventually it will actually kill you.
Beneficial effects of xenon inhalation on behavioral changes in a valproic acid-induced model of autism in rats.
Whoa.
Whoa!
Behavioral modulatory effects of xenon are probably related to its generalized action on excitatory inhibitory balance within the central nervous system.
Our data suggests that sub-anesthetic short-term exposure to xenon Have beneficial effect on several behavioral modalities and deserves further investigation.
So, yeah, I'm not making any kind of medical claims about xenon being, you know, the cure for benzodiazepine addiction.
I want to be very clear about that.
I actually just made a documentary for my new season about xenon, and I think it's really interesting because this is, you know, another one of these things that I don't think can ever be regulated.
It's in every breath that we take.
It shows the pervasiveness of these psychoactive drugs.
You can talk about drugs as if they're over there.
There's this thing we've got to get rid of.
There will always be drugs, no matter what we do.
We can arrest everyone associated with Purdue.
We can do whatever we want.
This is just part of our environment.
I mean, nitrous oxide, I didn't even know this until I started working on this piece.
I always assumed that nitrous oxide was a purely synthetic chemical.
And I always thought it was weird that nitrous oxide interacts with B12. It just seemed random to me, but it's one of these things you read in a textbook and you just think, all right, nitrous oxide interferes with B12 metabolism.
Fine.
That's a thing that happens.
And then I started thinking, like, but wait a second, why?
Why would nitrous oxide, of all things, not oxygen, not hydroxide, not some other oxidizing agent that would potentially be stronger in vivo, why nitrous oxide?
Why would that interact with vitamin B12? And then I realized that both nitrous oxide and B12 are produced by bacteria, and that there's probably ancient bacterial interactions, and this has been researched a little bit as well, that these might be part of ancient bacterial signaling cascades that you can We're good to
Well, I mean, again, I think that like using Jordan Peterson as an example of like a typical benzodiazepine dependent person is probably not the right way to think about it because, you know, I don't know what social factors he was facing as well.
Like the last thing you want if you're So the withdrawal is going to increase anxiety.
The last thing you want is to be in a clinic surrounded by people that know who you are, that are like, oh, you're Jordan Peterson.
You're that alt-right men's activist guy.
How dare you?
How dare you, sir?
Or whatever.
Maybe he just wanted to get away from people that had opinions about his work.
Maybe he felt like he was drowning in an abundance of Misrepresentation.
I would be somewhat hesitant to make any sort of recommendations, but there are other drugs like pregabalin and gabapentin that also exert some kind of mild anxiolytic effect that some people consider less habituating than benzodiazepines.
It seems that they are, in fact, better tolerated, but it's not the same.
It's like saying, oh, you could use cannabis, but cannabis isn't the same.
I don't think that it would be effective specifically for the GABAergic mechanism of benzodiazepine withdrawal, but I think that it may be psychologically effective, because that's a big component of iboga and ibogaine.
I actually, for the first time, went to an iboga ceremony in Gabon in December of 2019, and it was incredible.
It was one of the most amazing experiences of my entire life, and I felt like I fully Not fully, not even close to fully, but I began to understand iboga in a way that I certainly didn't when I last spoke to you.
And a big part of those ceremonies, you know, we, again, we often talk about these things in pharmacologically reductionist terms, which is fine.
I do it myself all the time.
But a big part of the ceremony is fasting.
Sleep deprivation, various feats of endurance, dancing for 12 straight hours, continuous, extremely loud music, continuous socializing.
And so if you're somebody that is struggling with an addiction of some kind, suddenly you're surrounded by people who are watching you all the time, right?
They have a sort of I hate to call it a dungeon, but it had a dungeon-like character, where the people who are struggling with addiction all lay side by side, and it's like laying down and withdrawing in the middle of the loudest imaginable party.
On one hand, it sounds kind of horrible, but they're also surrounded by a supportive community that genuinely cares about them, and they're giving them iboga to anesthetize them.
Because iboga is also, like ketamine and like xenon, an NMDA antagonist.
At very high doses, it produces a pseudo-anesthetic effect.
And they even, at very high doses, will prick you with a thorn to make sure you're still responsive.
And if you don't respond to the prick, then they realize that you've had enough and it's time to let you come down a little bit.
So they put you into this state.
You don't eat any food.
All of the water that you drink is aboga tea.
So every sip of water has ibogaine in it.
Your body is inundated with ibogaine with no food for five straight days.
It's the most amazing celebration you could possibly imagine.
And, again, I'm not going to make any claims about the safety of this, because I don't know, but I certainly met several people who had been doing it since they were an infant, who were college students, who were doing completely fine, who seemed socially functional, and happy to be there.
And what I learned about Iboga, I think a big part of it, is like, are you familiar with breatharianism?
So this is a widely mocked pseudoscientific idea that if you're spiritually enlightened enough, you don't need nutrients or water.
You just extract it from the ether and enrich yourself with the power of the prana or whatever.
Yeah.
And it's very easy to make fun of something like that, because of course you need food.
Of course you need food.
But I think whenever there's something like that that seems really stupid superficially, it's useful to think, like, psychologically, why would somebody do that?
Why would anyone subject themselves to a period of days of fasting and this delusional idea that they don't need food?
People have died this way.
Why would they do this?
Because it's a tremendously empowering idea that everything that you need is within you, that you don't need anything else, that you can harvest vast sources of energy inside yourself and use that to sustain your every action.
And people are drawn to that concept, even though it's completely fraudulent.
And in the aboga ceremony, there is a Component of that where you strip everything away everything that you don't need water you don't need to pee you don't need food You don't need sleep you just keep going because everything that you need is within you and it Emphasizes self-reliance and strength in a way that I think is tremendously beneficial for all people that have any kind of dependence not just opioids and It doesn't matter.
It's not about a pharmacological class.
It's about this substance that teaches you a lesson through also this cultural context that you have everything that you need within yourself.
I didn't go all the way with it because, you know, it's amazing.
I've never really fasted.
I did just at the very end, and even that was amazing.
It's like, you know, getting a second wind when you're running, where you go through a period where you think, oh, this is insane.
I can't.
I'm gonna die.
I can't do this.
And then you keep going, and suddenly there's this tremendous exhilaration in realizing that you're not going to die, and that, in fact, there are additional reserves within you, and that you can keep going and keep going.
And I think that by tapping into that ceremonially, people leave with a sense of strength that empowers them and allows them to live life without the dependencies that they had previously.
I would say, and it's pharmacologically and chemically quite different from other psychedelics, I would say that it was the most logical I have ever felt in my entire life.
I truly felt that I was seeing myself like an outside observer without any kind of emotional attachments, and I could understand the way that I had distorted various things, and I could understand frameworks of justifications and delusions in such a way as to Understand my own behavior, forgive myself for it, and correct it in the future.
And in the wake of that experience, I did make changes to my life, and I do feel better as a result of it.
Kind of the prevailing concept is that you have a subtype of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor called the alpha-3-beta-4 acetylcholine receptor that it acts as an antagonist at.
And this is a pharmacology that's shared by some other anti-addictive medications like Welbutrin.
So there's an idea that simply by binding to that receptor, it is exerting a pharmacological anti-addictive effect.
That's one hypothesis.
Then there's an idea that it's working via release of neurotrophic factors like BDNF and GDNF, which is glial-derived neurotrophic factor.
Then there's an idea that it's working via the NMDA receptor, or that it may be exerting a classical serotonergic effect via the 5-HT2A receptor, or that its metabolite, nor ibogaine, is exerting an opioid effect that lessens withdrawal.
It has a very complicated pharmacology and binds to a wide variety of different receptors, both of the ibogaine and its metabolite, nor ibogaine.
And so to pinpoint any one A fact is difficult.
Same thing happens with ketamine.
People argue endlessly about the mechanism of ketamine.
And I don't think anyone agrees on a single mechanism.
I don't think we know.
But I can say that what I learned from that ceremony was that it's not about opioids.
It doesn't matter.
It's about these compulsions that almost every person has.
And it's sort of like when people talk about drugs, as if drugs are just one thing.
It's like we create these artificial boundaries where Oxycodone is a drug, but Instagram isn't a drug.
Air conditioning isn't a drug.
Having compulsive sex with people isn't a drug.
Gambling isn't a drug, right?
But they're all, at least neurologically, they're probably operating on similar circuits.
They're all compulsions of one kind.
They're all drives to lessen suffering and increase comfort in one way or another.
And we gear our life to reduce suffering.
And the only way that we can live a healthy life is to develop a Mature attitude towards suffering and to find benefit in it.
I mean, I think that's even—there's a lot of Christian iconography in these ceremonies, even though this is in Central West Africa.
And part of me thinks, like, why do you want the, like, colonists' imagery in your beautiful tradition?
Why do I have to bow down to Christ as a part of this?
But then I realized that— For many cultures, the words of the Bible aren't important.
What's important is that the image of Christ symbolizes divinity in suffering, that there is strength in suffering, and that you can see that image and find strength in your own suffering.