Joe Rogan Experience

Change is inevitable, but how we adapt defines our reality.

the apartment building, I witnessed a guy casually walking in, grabbing a package, and walking out as if it were completely normal. It’s a bizarre reality we’re living in.

Joe Rogan Experience is a podcast that has evolved significantly over time. As Joe mentioned, “Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night.” In this episode, Joe is joined by Hamilton, who reflects on their previous podcasts. “This is our third podcast, but not really. I only count two of them because of the first one; we were literally so stoned we couldn't communicate.”

Hamilton continues, “I remember well. I like it. I feel like I'm getting the tour. First, it was your home, then the LA location, and now this new intermediate red tube.” Joe humorously refers to their current studio as the “red tube,” noting that some folks call it the “red pill,” which carries negative connotations. He adds, “This is podcast Studio number one, two, three, four, five. It’s number five. It might be number six.”

Joe explains the rapid construction of the studio, saying, “This one was very haphazardly constructed last minute because we made the decision to get the [__] out of LA and we had five weeks.” His friend Matt Alvarez helped set it up, and just five weeks later, they were broadcasting from Texas. Joe admits, “It looks good. It's not bad. It's okay.” However, he expresses a desire for a more optimal arrangement, stating, “The optimal arrangement is probably less weird on the eyes.”

He describes the current studio as odd, with backlights behind sound panels and a red and black color scheme. “It's just an odd room, man. It's odd, but I like it. I just think we could do better. We can make it weird. Plus, I get bored easy. Been here for six months, want to mix it up.”

Shifting the conversation, Hamilton shares his thoughts on Brooklyn, saying, “It’s grim right now. I've lived in New York for the majority of my life. I love New York City, and this is by far the grimmest I have ever seen it.” He attributes this to the harsh winter and the challenges faced by the entire country. “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 [__].”

Hamilton laments, “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 [__]. It’s just this dystopian frozen pandemic landscape where every local business that I love has closed down. It’s a dark time.”

Joe empathizes, recalling his own experience in Los Angeles. “I saw a lot of it, but I got out early. I saw the writing on the wall and was looking to move in May. Once the lockdown got extended, I was like, ‘Oh, they're never going to let us out of this.’” He describes the escalating crime and the overwhelming presence of homelessness in LA, saying, “Los Angeles is filled with tents. You can't believe it. When I tell people about it, they go there and say, ‘Oh, I thought you were exaggerating.’ No, I was understating.”

He reflects on the challenges faced by the homeless population, questioning, “What are people going to do? Where are you going to put them? Do you have hospitals available?” Joe points out that many shelters have strict rules, stating, “A lot of those shelters won’t let them do drugs. People would rather be in a [__] tent outside by the beach than be under your thumb.”

The conversation shifts back to the economic divides exacerbated by the pandemic. “Everyone in New York just orders everything on Amazon,” Hamilton notes. “Every apartment building in every nice part of New York receives a daily shipment of every tenant's stuff from Amazon.” He highlights the secondary economy of package theft, saying, “I’ve seen a lot of ring videos, the doorbell camera videos of people stealing [__]. It’s almost comical.”

Hamilton shares a personal experience, recalling, “I had one where I was loading my car with bags at 2:00 in the morning on a Tuesday, and in the lobby of the apartment building, I witnessed a guy casually walking in, grabbing a package, and walking out as if it were completely normal.” It’s a bizarre reality they both acknowledge, reflecting the current state of their cities and the challenges they face.

=> 00:05:14

The pandemic exposed deep economic divides, leaving many businesses struggling to survive while others thrived, highlighting the uneven playing field we all navigate.

Los Angeles doesn't get cold; you know, I mean, a cold day is 50 degrees. It's not a big deal, right? Just a sleeping bag, and you're outside; it's nice. However, this situation really emphasizes a lot of these economic divides. In New York, everyone just orders everything on Amazon. Every apartment building in every nice part of New York receives a daily shipment of every tenant's stuff from Amazon. Then, there's like a secondary economy of people just going into all the buildings and stealing all the packages. I've seen a lot of that; I've seen a lot of ring videos, the doorbell camera videos of people stealing.

Oh yeah, it's almost comical. I mean, I had one where I was loading my car with bags at 2:00 in the morning on a Tuesday, and in the lobby of my building for maybe 15 minutes, as soon as I walk around the corner, someone goes and scoops everything up. It's a wild time, and I hope we're coming out of it. Right when I came to Austin, this was the first time I've been on an airplane since the beginning of the pandemic. You're the first person I've spoken to without a mask. No, really, the first face I've seen! It felt weird coming in here, but you knew everyone was tested.

I felt fine; I've just been very careful. Because it's all so cold in New York, it just promotes this prison cell-like lifestyle where I'm just sitting in my apartment reading and doing push-ups all day. Oh God, yeah, the dog situation is like—people just don't clean up anymore; they just gave up. You know how it is; there's this kind of tumbling character where things just start to accumulate, and then no one shovels the streets. It gets easier, but probably it's harder to pick it up because there are just mounting layers of garbage everywhere, and it just starts to look increasingly disgusting. Maybe we'll just get out of this in a couple of weeks, and everything will be fine.

The problem that I don't think the people who shut everything down for a year ever take into consideration is that people don't have the resources to bounce back. Things don't bounce back on their own, right? 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. When you've been out of business for a year, you don't have any money. You've probably used up all savings if you had any. Try getting a loan when you don't have anything—there's really no logical path forward for a lot of these businesses. In Los Angeles, 75% of the restaurants are gone.

I'm so worried about the restaurants in New York. It's terrible; it doesn't seem like it's even talked about sufficiently. In New York, in the wintertime, I mean, they're really trying. They're doing things that I would have never imagined—truly extraordinary things like making these little heated space gazebos that are covered in Mylar on the inside. Ultimately, most people don't even really want to do that, so then there's this weird conflict: 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? Is it actually immoral to go to restaurants? Of course, people endlessly argue about that.

Well, personal choices are not immoral, right? 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 the coronavirus, and ideally receiving some sort of government assistance.

Well, it's also like when does the government assistance run out? Because it has run out for a lot of people; there is no more unemployment for many folks. On top of that, the way everything's been mismanaged is so terrible in so many ways. Like, why is it okay to be at Target on top of people? Why is it okay to be at Walgreens on top of people, but it's not okay to have these mom-and-pop stores open or retail stores?

Oh yeah, or you know, like I said, I haven't been on an airplane until I came to see you. But of course, I see all these stories in the news that are like, "This guy went on an airplane, and he took off his mask, and they had to do an emergency landing, and they kicked him off the plane, and everyone cheered." If you haven't been on a plane, you just kind of read that and think, "Oh yeah, that guy sounds like quite an [__]." Good that they kicked him off the plane, but then on the plane, I hadn't even...

=> 00:09:11

The real conversation we need to have is about strengthening our immune systems, not just masking up and shutting down businesses.

People are expressing that there is no more unemployment for a lot of folks, yet the situation has been mismanaged in so many terrible ways. For instance, why is it okay to be at Target or Walgreens on top of people, but not okay to have mom-and-pop stores or retail stores open? This inconsistency raises questions about the logic behind the restrictions.

Additionally, I haven't been on an airplane until I came to see you, but I have seen stories in the news about incidents on flights. For example, this guy went on an airplane and he took off his mask, leading to an emergency landing where he was kicked off the plane, and everyone cheered. If you haven't been on a plane, you might read that and think, oh yeah, that guy sounds like quite an [__]. However, I hadn't even considered the implications regarding snacks and food provisions on flights.

What happens to the snacks? Are there no more peanuts or water? If food is served, everyone has to take off their masks, which seems contradictory. This situation appears to be security theater, as food is still served, and everyone unmasks simultaneously to eat. Thus, there is a period of at least 15 minutes where everyone on the plane is unmasked due to the actions of the airline. It’s all just nonsense across the board.

I think people just don't know what to do. They are aware that all these things are contradictory, and everyone is trying to do their best, but they remain confused. Even to this day, people are trying not to be an []. When you wear a mask, you’re essentially saying, *I’m not an []. I want you to feel like I care, and I want you to feel all right*. While wearing a mask may provide some protection against droplets when someone sneezes, it is certainly not 100% safe.

The masking is definitely beneficial, and that is pretty well established. However, what I don't understand is the hypocrisy. If we have established that masking is good, then we also need to reconsider having snacks or water on flights. What do you do when you are sitting on top of each other, with three people next to each other? It is literally the opposite of social distancing; it’s incredibly intimate, and you don’t even know these people, yet you’re touching elbows with them.

When the pandemic started, I was one of those people who thought, what is going on? I work in media and know how the media tends to blow things out of proportion. I remember the swine flu and how fear sells newspapers. I thought, this can't possibly be as bad as people think it is. I was somewhat in COVID denial, especially since I was in the middle of filming the third season of my TV show. I was seduced by the momentum of production and didn’t want it to end. People were saying, I don’t think we can film anymore; I think we have to stop, and I thought, is the world going to shut down? I remember thinking, this is unprecedented; the world isn’t going to shut down, and we’re not going to be kept in our apartments. It just wasn’t conceivable that such a thing could happen.

Fast forward one year later, and it’s interesting to note that there has been no emphasis whatsoever on steps that you should take to make yourself healthier. There has been no discussion about reducing obesity. You have to lose weight, take vitamins, and do something to ensure that your immune system is strong. For instance, here are the steps that you can take: studies show that 84% of people in the ICU for COVID have insufficient levels of vitamin D. There is a significant correlation between low levels of vitamin D and a weakened immune system. Only 4% of people in the ICU with COVID have sufficient levels of vitamin D.

This is just one aspect; they also know about zinc and ionophores like quercetin, which allows zinc to enter the cell more readily, making it more bioavailable and protective against viruses. They know that vitamin C is excellent for your immune system, and water is also crucial. There are peer-reviewed studies on this information.

However, it is challenging to make those claims because, even if they confer some therapeutic benefit, they don’t seemingly prevent coronavirus infection. There has been some emphasis on obesity as a contributing factor, which is one of the biggest comorbidity factors. It’s huge, but the reality is that it does provide some level of protection against viruses.

=> 00:13:13

Nutrients like vitamin D, zinc, and vitamin C can boost your immune system, but the focus on pharmaceutical solutions often overshadows their importance.

Sufficient levels of vitamin D are just one aspect of maintaining a healthy immune system. There is also evidence that zinc and ionophores like quercetin can enhance the bioavailability of zinc, allowing it to enter cells more readily. This combination not only improves zinc's effectiveness but also provides protection against viruses. Additionally, vitamin C is recognized as excellent for immune function, and staying hydrated with water is crucial for overall immune health. There are peer-reviewed studies supporting these claims.

However, it is important to note that making definitive claims about these nutrients can be challenging. Even if they confer some therapeutic benefits, they do not seem to prevent coronavirus infection. There has been significant emphasis on obesity as a major contributing factor to severe outcomes from COVID-19, as it is one of the biggest comorbidity factors. Nevertheless, these nutrients do provide some level of protection against viruses and help maintain a strong immune system. I can share some studies on zinc and quercetin that my doctor, Dr. Gordon, a specialist in this area, has sent me. It is essential to recognize that there are significant steps one can take with nutrients to boost the immune system.

The pace of medicine often feels too slow to address these issues meaningfully. Many people are looking for a pharmaceutical cure, whether it be a treatment or a vaccine, and they tend to overlook the importance of nutrients, exercise, and a healthy diet in strengthening the immune system. This aspect is not emphasized enough in discussions about health.

I have personally gone through various cycles of understanding regarding the pandemic. Initially, I experienced denial, thinking it couldn't possibly be as severe as reported. Then, I considered the possibility of an antiviral agent being available, as it was widely understood that a vaccine would take time to develop, which it ultimately did. During that period, there was significant hope for small molecule antiviral therapies, leading to considerable interest in chloroquine. Unfortunately, the situation became highly politicized, which is a significant problem. A molecule should be evaluated based on its efficacy, not its political affiliations. Anything associated with Trump, for example, seemed to become toxic in public discourse.

As the pandemic unfolded, I observed discussions about various antiviral therapies, including remdesivir, favipiravir, and ivermectin. At that time, remdesivir had not yet received FDA approval, was difficult to synthesize, and was quite expensive, typically administered intravenously. These factors hindered its mass distribution as a potential intervention. When the pandemic began, I reached out to various labs to explore experimental antiviral treatments, partly to write a scientific paper on the purity of antiviral drugs being sold during the pandemic.

I remember ordering remdesivir early on, around March, and one lab informed me that it was prohibitively expensive at $22,000 a gram. They then mentioned another drug being used in China, chloroquine, which was very cheap and purportedly worked just as well. This was my first exposure to chloroquine, and soon after, it gained immense popularity. Although a few studies provided some support for its potential usefulness, the conversation around it became so politicized that rational discussion was nearly impossible. The entire situation turned into a chaotic mess.

=> 00:17:11

In a world where politics overshadow science, the truth about medicine often gets lost in the noise.

I remember ordering REM Desir early on, probably in March. One of the labs mentioned, "Oh well, you know it's very expensive, it's $22,000 a gram or something, but there's this other drug that we're using in China right now called chloroquine. It's very, very cheap and works just as well. Would you like to try that?" I thought, hm, that's interesting. That was the first I had heard about it.

Then, there was this huge buzz surrounding chloroquine; everyone was talking about it. There were a small number of studies published that provided a little bit of support for it potentially being useful. However, it became so politicized that people couldn't talk about it rationally anymore, and it turned into a total mess. I think that's the worst thing that could possibly happen in medicine.

For instance, my friend got COVID, and the doctor literally asked him about his political leanings. When my friend questioned why, the doctor replied, "I just want to tell you that in the early stages of infection, there's some evidence that hydroxychloroquine has a positive effect." My friend responded, "I don't give a [ __ ] about politics. Just give me what works!" He was baffled by the conversation. The doctor laughed and said, "I know, it’s just that when I bring that up, some people are so anti-Trump that they don’t even want to hear it." This was around May, and people were afraid to acknowledge the fact that they were using it. I knew physicians who had used it themselves, but they would never publicly acknowledge it. It was crazy.

I even knew one physician who had publicly spoken out against it, yet I was aware they had privately gotten a prescription for it. Some people were using it as a prophylactic, which seemed odd. 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. When I mentioned earlier that the pace of medicine isn't suited to all this, it's remarkable what people have achieved in such a short period. I don’t mean to say that people haven’t been working very hard; of course, they have. However, you often need meta-analyses and years of work to really begin to understand the intricacies of how these drugs act in a context like this.

Have you considered moving somewhere other than Brooklyn? Well, I was still making my show in Brooklyn, so I couldn't move. Now, it seems like there’s light at the end of the tunnel, and it looks like it’s on its way out. I like Brooklyn. Did you read James Alter’s piece about New York being gone and never coming back?

No, I haven't. It was a very controversial piece. Alter is a stockbroker but also one of the owners of The Stand, which is a famous comedy club in New York. He wrote this piece with a very detailed step-by-step analysis of all the things that are wrong and that just can't be resolved quickly, including crime, the number of people moving out, and the number of businesses that have failed. It paints a more dystopian picture.

Actually, I am probably moving out of New York as well. Where are you going? I think I'm going to move to Philadelphia. Philadelphia is nice; I love Philly. Why did you choose that? The lab I work at is in Philadelphia, and I think I'm going to start doing chemistry full-time.

Really? You're going to stop doing your show? Yeah, why? It's immensely difficult to make, and while I like challenges, it’s not just difficult for me; it's difficult for ten other people who are really suffering to make it possible. There wasn't enough money for it. I was working 13 hours a day, seven days a week. I had to work for something like four months without pay to finish it. It was not a good experience.

I'm proud of what we created, but it was a very good show. Thank you! It really is. I’ve enjoyed it long before we ever met, you know, when you were doing the other version of it. Did you get a chance to see any of the new season? I haven't.

Well, making something like that during the pandemic was challenging. It was an amazing challenge, and in retrospect, I am actually grateful because I learned so many things that I wouldn’t have learned otherwise. Typically, these productions are so...

=> 00:21:05

Sometimes the toughest challenges lead to the most profound growth.

It is possible that there wasn't enough money for it. You know, I was working 13 hours a day, seven days a week. I had to, because of the pandemic, and I worked for something like four months without pay to finish it. It was not a good experience. I'm proud of what we created, but it really is a very good show. Thank you! I’ve enjoyed it long before we ever met, you know, when you were doing the other version of it.

Did you get a chance to see any of the new season? I haven't. Well, making something like that during the pandemic was challenging. 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, someone that holds a camera, and someone that does color correction. 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.

Is this a temporary shift into going back and working for a lab, or do you think that you're going to abandon media? Well, this is a really extraordinary time right now. For the last decade or so, when I’ve done this chemistry work with this brilliant chemist named Jason Wallick, there’s been no funding whatsoever for this work. The university pays for a little bit of it. Tim Ferris once was really nice and gave me a few thousand dollars to synthesize a radioactive psychedelic for an experiment, but there was no funding for it.

What are you doing? Man, got some Spider-Man [__] going on! What’s happening? It’s an old technique called auto radiography, 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 would always have to be sort of distorted into research on schizophrenia. You couldn’t just say, “I’m studying psychedelics.” And what if you go to Oregon? Well, that might have some legal advantages, but this is just a funding thing. I wasn’t in it for that reason anyway, and you know, it didn’t cost all that much money to begin with. I would pay for little bits of things, and you can stretch a few thousand dollars a long way in a chemistry lab.

But now things are changing, and there’s a lot of support for research on 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 it actually helps regrow neurons, and it’s one of the few things that really helps fighters with brain damage. They’re conducting some studies right now.

That’s amazing! Yeah, it’s really amazing. They’re doing some therapies, and I hope to get these guys on soon and talk to them about what they’ve done and what they’re doing. But you know, lion’s mane is good for the brain, and there are several other different mushrooms. But psychedelics in general, particularly psilocybin—what do you know about psilocybin and the growth of neurons in people with brain damage? Do you know anything?

Yeah, I mean, this is a hot area of research. There’s someone named David Olon 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, this is a great way to start it off, right? So then people are not experiencing psychoactive effects and don’t change their state of consciousness; they’re sober.

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 and have 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.

I think that there’s a widely believed idea that the reason 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. The government said these are evil drugs.

=> 00:25:03

Neurogenesis isn't a magic bullet; the real potential of psychedelics lies in shifting public perception and rigorous research, not just in their ability to grow new brain cells.

I do wonder about the complexities surrounding neurogenesis and its therapeutic effects. There have been a number of compounds, one notable one called NSI 189, that are very potent neurogenesis-inducing agents but do not have an impressive therapeutic effect and have failed in clinical trials. Thus, it is clear that neurogenesis does not simply equate to positive outcomes; there needs to be something else at play. The literature on this topic is contradictory, and I think we are still in the early stages of understanding these compounds. We are just now starting to realize even a small fraction of their potential.

There is a widely believed idea that the reason there has been little medical scientific research on psychedelics, at least for a long time, is because the government shut it all down, deeming these substances as evil drugs. While that was part of the story, it wasn't the whole picture. For instance, there was a group in Maryland called the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, which was the last group conducting psychedelic research until 1977. After that, there was a significant gap until Rick Strassman began his DMT studies in the late '80s and early '90s. At the time the Maryland group was conducting their research, they were running out of funding, and there was a lack of interest in their work. There was no pharmaceutical future for the therapy; no pharmaceutical companies were attempting to commercialize any of it. They weren't seeing clients and making money off of it, and consequently, the university and funding bodies lost interest. This led to a sad slow death of psychedelic research due to deprivation of funds and lack of public enthusiasm.

It's important to remember that pharmaceutical companies are extremely controversial and are often despised by the public. However, during the 1960s, one reason for the substantial funding and interest in psychedelic research was that these studies were financed by pharmaceutical companies. There was hope that these substances could be developed and sold as medicines, which aligns with the end goal of our medical system. As controversial as it is, the pharmaceutical interest in these substances is now providing support that has been largely absent until recently, and it has the potential to push things forward significantly.

I believe that awareness of brain damage, PTSD, and other conditions where psychedelics can be beneficial will motivate the public to be more enthusiastic and open-minded about these substances. For a long time, people viewed psychedelics as merely tools for escapism. However, if there are more peer-reviewed studies conducted by respected universities or research centers, and if these findings are reported in reputable media outlets like The New York Times or CNN, public perception may gradually shift. If these substances are proven to be effective medicines, that could be the most convincing argument of all. It doesn't matter how much someone dislikes psychedelics; if they are suffering from cluster headaches and find relief through psilocybin, they will be sold on its efficacy.

I hope for a future where we can encourage people to microdose as commonly as they drink coffee. Just imagine if we could get people to microdose as frequently as they take Tylenol. There was a study recently published that raised some doubts about microdosing, but it was self-reported. The study involved around 5,000 participants in a self-blinding study with microdosing LSD. However, we must remember that we often discuss microdosing as if it is a singular experience. The study found that microdosing was not significantly different from a placebo, which raises questions about its effectiveness. Nonetheless, the subjective experiences reported by participants did not indicate any negative aspects; they simply did not find any notable differences.

=> 00:29:02

Microdosing might not show clear benefits in studies, but for many, the subjective experience of happiness and connection it brings is life-changing.

Imagine if we could get people to microdose as easily as we get them to drink coffee. There was a study that I think was just published, which kind of shined some doubt on microdosing. However, it was self-reported, and this is with Sil. What kind of study was it? The author just emailed me; I think it involved a 5,000 person self-reported, self-blinding study with microdosing LSD, if I remember correctly.

But again, we are talking about microdosing as if it is one thing. What were the negative aspects of the study? Oh, that it just wasn't different from placebo. There was no negative; it just was not different from placebo. That is one of those weird situations in terms of the subjective experience of the people who reported that they didn't find any difference compared to placebo. When they compared the results of the placebo and the results of the microdose, there was no difference between the two.

There are so many variables when it comes to people and how they view the world, how they interface with society, to say there is no difference between one person taking a 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 happening? 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 with the other person taking the microdose or the other person taking the placebo? There are 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, giving one of them a microdose and the other a placebo. That would be better; that would be ideal. Yes, you know what I'm saying, though? These people self-randomized, so they would have some capsules that contained placebo and some that contained microdoses. This is not the end of it; people will continue talking about this, and it also depends on the dose. Dose is so important in microdosing, but no one really knows the dose they're taking. That's a pretty big limitation, as far as I'm concerned.

I have microdosed LSD and I have microdosed psilocybin. I particularly find that psilocybin microdosing makes me very happy. It does something real nice; it just gives you a nice feeling. I think it's real. If you feel nice and you feel happy, I think that influences the way you interact with people, which influences your whole life. I mean, I haven't done it a lot, but I've done it enough to know that it's legitimately effective. Anecdotally, I have a lot of friends that do it all the time. One of them says, "This is my medicine. This has changed my life." He was depressed and bummed out about all sorts of things in his life, getting a divorce, and all sorts of challenges. He started microdosing, and every time you see him, he has a big smile, hugging everybody.

What dose do you use when you microdose? With psilocybin, the problem is I was getting it ground up and put into capsules, so I was taking two of these capsules a day. It’s a very small amount, but enough to give you a nice feeling—nothing crazy. However, this is one of the problems I think is just even defining microdosing. For some people, it might be a low, very subtle trip, and that could be defined as a sub-psychedelic experience. There is going to be a lot of work that needs to be done on optimizing those sorts of effects.

When we talk about microdosing, we are primarily discussing these two common psychedelics, psilocybin and LSD. However, Alexander Shulgin was doing a lot of research on maybe there are psychedelics that are less psychedelic in general, which have a little bit of the effect that people are looking for with a microdose of LSD. This could be a mild stimulant that produces a small amount of empathy or just a small change of one kind or another.

Interestingly, this has even been approved medically in the past, both with ibogaine when it was a pharmaceutical product under the name lamourine in France. It was essentially pharmaceutical ibogaine microdosing that was not psychedelic. This was in the 50s, I believe. When did they stop? I think they stopped in the 60s, but you can find French adventure novels that reference it, like, "As I ascended the volcano, I took...

=> 00:32:51

Psychedelics don't have to be intense to be effective; sometimes a mild touch is all you need for a boost in mood and empathy.

Psychedelics that are less intense in their effects can still provide some of the benefits people seek from microdosing, such as with LSD. These substances may act as mild stimulants or produce a small amount of empathy, or induce a slight change in perception. Historically, this has even been approved medically. For example, ibogaine was once a pharmaceutical product known as Lamourine in France.

In the 1950s, Lamourine was essentially a pharmaceutical version of ibogaine that was prescribed. Interestingly, it was not the psychedelic form of ibogaine that was being used. There are accounts from that time, including French adventure novels, where characters would take Lamourine to gain strength for challenging endeavors, such as climbing a volcano. It was regarded merely as a stimulant without any discussion of its psychedelic properties.

When asked about personal experiences with microdosing ibogaine, one individual recounted that at a dose of 20 to 25 milligrams, it exerted no psychedelic effects and felt almost like a mild stimulant or a slight antidepressant. The French brand name Lamourine referred to ibogaine, and the tablets were around seven milligrams each, suggesting a similar dosage range.

Another interesting compound is Alpha-ethyl tryptamine, which is now classified as a Schedule I controlled substance in the United States. This compound was once approved as an antidepressant under the brand name Mones in the 1960s. It functioned similarly to a microdose of MDMA but has since been forgotten. The discontinuation of such substances often raises questions, especially considering the known benefits of MDMA for conditions like PTSD in soldiers.

In the case of Alpha-ethyl tryptamine, it was discontinued due to concerns over a condition called agranulocytosis, which was toxic and potentially deadly. This reason for discontinuation had nothing to do with its effects similar to MDMA.

The discussion then shifts to the sources of MDMA. There is a Cambodian tree that serves as a precursor for MDMA, which has become a target for deforestation. This situation highlights a significant issue with the unregulated drug market. The narrative often places blame on individual drug use for environmental destruction, but the real problem lies in the lack of regulation. Criminal enterprises exploit the illegal status of these substances, leading to harmful practices like deforestation.

While it is true that there are better ways to produce MDMA without destroying forests, the illegal market incentivizes the cheapest methods. Remarkably, MDMA can be synthesized from various starting materials, including black pepper. The process involves isolating a chemical called piperine from black pepper and then performing chemical modifications.

However, this method is not efficient, and someone attempting to produce MDMA from black pepper would need to buy an excessive amount from the grocery store. This brings to mind a recent comment by Neil Young regarding black pepper, noting that it can help mitigate paranoia when someone is feeling too high. This connection adds another layer to the ongoing conversation about the complexities of drug use and its implications.

=> 00:36:49

Black pepper might just be the secret weapon to tame your cannabis paranoia.

Starting materials you can make it from include black pepper. Yes, black pepper. How the [] did they do that? It's a multi-step process where you isolate a chemical called piperine from the black pepper and then do some chemical modifications. So, if someone goes to the grocery store and buys the whole shelf of black pepper, *keep an eye on that []. Yes, because he's going to be spending a lot and wasting a lot of time. To produce like one granule of *MDMA, it's not an efficient way to do it.

Damn it, it covered it up! Neil Young had something recently about black pepper that I had heard, and I was wondering if this is a great time to bring it up. If you're too high, it takes away the paranoia feelings. You can take like two or three tablespoons—no, just the granules, really, the seed or whatever it's called, the pepper, I guess. Neil Young mentioned how black pepper sedates marijuana paranoia, according to him and science. He said it on a Tonight Show or something. Did he say that to which Tonight Show?

There's a tpine in it that has something to do with it, and maybe it's the same chemical. Oh, what is it? Do they say the name of it? You don't know this? Did we just stump Hamilton Morris? Oh yeah, this is clearly outrageous. It doesn't say exactly what it is, but it mentions taming medical extract basically. The tpine doesn't specify the exact one in here. Oh, there it goes—oh, that's mercian.

Yeah, you know about that? I do know about it. Did you know that it was in black pepper seeds? I didn't know that. It's in black pepper seeds, but it's also in cannabis. I don't think that mercian would actually reverse the effect of a cannabis high. We should try it; we should get super high as [__] and see if we freak out and then chew on some pepper seeds.

I tried it once. Did you? I mean, I wasn't that high, but I was like, "I'm a little too let." There's some black pepper. Jamie's one of the rare individuals that it doesn't work on. I want to see what he said. He can take a thousand milligrams and just sit there. I go, "How you doing?" and he's like, "Fine." Interesting. I imagine you have a sizable tolerance.

1350 was the highest I've done. That's a lot. Is there something I should try to take that would help? Maybe a period of abstinence? Oh, okay [__]. But he doesn't do that much. You're not tripping on edibles all the time; you smoke more.

Yeah, he's not an edible user; he gets high off smoking. I don't know; maybe some idiosyncratic absorption? I don't know. I'd have to talk about this a little bit. What would prevent someone from getting high off of eating it? Oh, there's a lot. I mean, there are lots of CB1 antagonists or inverse agonists that will actually affect mercian.

Maybe it has some mild modulatory effect. I would not want to depend on mercian to actually reverse the effect of a cannabis high. I would be amazed if it were effective. But are there any unusual biodiversity issues, like some weird things about your own chemistry that would stop THC edibles or marijuana edibles from working on you?

Sure, you could think of a million. Have you heard of that before, that someone can take that much? I have not heard of that before. Now, it's so weird; I'll take 200 and I'll be gripping the chair like I'm in space. We brought it up, and I've got a lot of messages from people asking, "What did you figure out to take finally? Can you help me out? I'm dying to know." I'm like, "Oh, so other people don't get it either. I'm not the only one."

Yeah, that's the problem with things being illegal; you know we don't really know. There's so much we don't know. I mean, it might be some kind of metabolic quirk. Obviously, when you consume 11-hydroxy, but THC itself, of course, is active without conversion to 11-hydroxy, so that wouldn't explain it.

Maybe you have some rapid metabolizer traits in terms of producing some kind of inactive form of THC. There are variables in terms of how well people sober up from things, right? Like some people, particularly with alcohol, I'm a quick sober-upper. When it comes to alcohol, for whatever reason, I can get drunk and like an hour later, I'm totally sober in the weirdest way.

We're different; we're metabolically different organisms depending on where your ancestors are from and a number of different factors, also depending on the history of things that...

=> 00:40:43

Embrace the complexity of our bodies; we're all wired differently, and understanding that can change how we view substances and their effects on us.

When discussing the consumption of THC, it's important to note that 11-hydroxy THC is often referenced. However, THC itself is active without conversion to 11-hydroxy, which raises questions about individual experiences with the substance. For instance, some people may be rapid metabolizers, producing an inactive form of THC. There are various factors that influence how well individuals sober up from substances. For example, some people, particularly with alcohol, may find they can sober up quickly.

I personally experience this phenomenon; I can get drunk and, within an hour, feel completely sober. This variability in metabolism can be attributed to our different ancestral backgrounds and other factors that can upregulate or downregulate certain enzymes in our bodies. It's fascinating to observe someone with a low tolerance to alcohol who drinks just a little and becomes heavily intoxicated. It often leaves one wondering, "What is going on? Where did they go?"

Interestingly, I don't drink often. If I were to have even two drinks, I would be blitzed. It's somewhat unusual that I don't enjoy drinking, especially considering that I do partake occasionally. However, I feel very sensitive to hangovers, which contributes to my reluctance. I also think alcohol is a weird bad drug. This doesn't mean I believe it should be illegal or that it is inherently evil; rather, I think there are better alternatives, especially in comparison to cannabis, which I believe is vastly superior.

This perspective aligns with Dr. Carl Hart's argument, where he expresses a preference for heroin. Have you been following the controversy surrounding his new book? It's quite intriguing. I read it cover to cover and found it to be excellent. Dr. Hart is incredibly brave; as a professor at Columbia, he openly states, "I enjoy heroin, and it makes me feel good." He describes how it makes him feel compassionate, and he prefers to use pure heroin, often sniffing it.

His openness is commendable, especially considering the stigma surrounding drug use. While working on my own show, I found myself name-searching and came across a Reddit thread where people were insulting Dr. Hart. It made me realize that the average person may not fully understand the courage it takes for him to speak so openly about his experiences. Throughout my travels and interactions with academics, I've found that the type of drug use Dr. Hart describes is extremely common, yet honesty about it is rare.

If more people were like Dr. Hart, I believe many stigmas would be reduced. Some argue that reducing stigma is cruel, suggesting that it harms people who should be stigmatized. However, I disagree. People in these situations should not feel ashamed; they should view their experiences as medical or social problems, not as something deserving of hatred. We don't stigmatize alcoholics; instead, we celebrate their sobriety, such as when they receive their 90-day chip.

In contrast, heroin use is heavily stigmatized. Although I am not a heroin user, I did have a morphine drip once after surgery, and I found it to be an incredible experience. I kept pressing the button for more morphine during my recovery from knee surgery, which involved an ACL reconstruction. The procedure is quite painful, as they take pieces of your patellar tendon, shin bone, and knee, then drill and screw them in place. While lying in bed, my knee was on a continuous motion machine, bending and straightening repeatedly, and I was able to manage my pain with the morphine drip.

=> 00:44:30

Freedom of choice should never need justification, whether it's music, whiskey, or psychedelics. Embrace your choices without the need for excuses.

I want to clarify that I'm not a heroin user; I haven't used heroin. However, I did have a morphine drip once when I had surgery, and it was awesome. Oh my God, I kept hammering that button to give me a morphine drip. I had knee surgery and was in the hospital, lying on this perpetual motion machine. Have you ever seen one of those? I had an ACL reconstruction, which stands for anterior cruciate ligament. It's a significant injury where they take a piece of your patellar tendon, a piece of your shin bone, and a piece of your knee, then open you up to screw and drill them in place. It's pretty painful.

While I was lying in bed, my knee was on this machine, bending and straightening over and over again. They gave me a drip, and anytime I wanted, I could just press that button to get a little drip of morphine. I was going bing bing bing bing bing bing. I felt so good! I was like, "Oh, now I get it. Now I know why people like this." Morphine is basically heroin, right? It's pretty close—extremely close. Yeah, it's probably awesome, but for him, he's talking about pure heroin in small amounts. He understands it; he's a chemist. He really gets it. He’s a research scientist who was a complete straight-laced guy, not doing anything until he was in his 30s.

I know, it's a pretty crazy story. What I really appreciate about what he does is that there's a lot of perhaps justified insecurity in the world of drugs. People have been oppressed for such a long time that they needed some kind of justification. For example, I'm using psychedelics because it's religious, I'm using psychedelics because it's medical therapy, or I'm using psychedelics because it's traditional and part of my religion. It's very rare that people will just stand up and say, "I'm using these things because that's my freedom."

I don’t need to justify it. I don’t need to say that I have chronic back pain and that it’s treating it. It doesn’t matter; it’s just my choice as an adult. Even if it’s bad for me, it’s my choice as an adult, and it needs no justification—like whiskey. Whiskey is celebrated; it’s on television. You can watch ads for whiskey during TV shows, promoting, "Celebrate, have a glass of whiskey." I like whiskey, but if you drink a lot of it, it will mess you up. We don’t care; we’re just accustomed to it. It's become a part of our culture, so it’s a traditional use. It’s sanctioned by the government, and you get a nice tax stamp on it, so we’re okay with it.

All these patterns I just described emerged during prohibition as well. Yes, alcohol was prohibited, so you had medical whiskey. You could get a prescription from the doctor for whiskey because it was good for your nerves. One of our sponsors, Buffalo Trace, has been around longer than the United States; they’ve been around since 1773. They made whiskey during prohibition, and they’re still running. They are the longest-running distillery in America, producing whiskey for medicinal purposes during prohibition, which is kind of hilarious.

Of course, we see it with cannabis as well. I understand why people are doing this because it remains very controversial, and they want some kind of justification. But you should remember that at the end of the day, no justification should be required. If you get too lost in the justification, you might forget why you’re doing it in the first place.

I’ve been thinking about an analogy for years. Imagine if, in the 60s, people started listening to music for the first time and decided it was associated with the counterculture anti-war movement. Some people were listening to music too loud and causing irreversible damage to their hearing. Medical doctors would say, "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."

Then, on top of that, there’s an added advantage: because everyone is going to continue listening to music, we can selectively prosecute the people we want to because it’s a little crime that everyone is committing. This keeps going for years. People continue listening to music and playing music, creating their own biases where they say it’s okay to listen to music, just as long as you don’t perform it or record it.

=> 00:48:23

Freedom to choose is essential; life is about personal experiences, not restrictions.

People were listening to music too loud and causing irreversible damage to their hearing. Medical doctors recognized this as a significant problem, noting that some individuals were becoming deaf as a result of their music consumption. Consequently, they advocated for regulation and prohibition to protect people, emphasizing that it was a pressing issue. Additionally, there was an added advantage in that, since everyone continued to listen to music, authorities could selectively prosecute individuals for this minor crime, which many were committing. This situation persisted for years, with people continuing to enjoy music while developing their own biases, suggesting that it was acceptable to listen to music as long as one did not perform or record it.

Eventually, some scientists convened and claimed they had never listened to music before, fearing that doing so would bias their understanding, which they deemed unacceptable. However, they examined old pre-prohibition information on music and concluded that it was, in fact, very beneficial and could be used as a medicine. As a result, society embraced music as a therapeutic tool, with many individuals stating, "Oh, I just listened to music today; it was so wonderful for my anxiety." While this shift was positive, it overlooked the essential point that music does not have to be viewed solely as a medicine.

To clarify, it is indeed possible to conduct studies that demonstrate music's therapeutic effects; for example, music therapy can treat neurodegenerative diseases or depression. While positive results could be obtained, the question remains: So what? Music does not need to be categorized strictly as a medicine. As much as I appreciate the medicalization and decriminalization occurring, I hope people remember that we should be free to engage in activities regardless of their perceived benefits or drawbacks. This historical justification stems from a fear of acknowledging our freedom to choose, irrespective of whether those choices are deemed good or bad.

This argument can extend to various activities, such as exercise. For instance, one could argue that running is detrimental to one's knees based on medical studies, suggesting that people should stop running. Similarly, one might propose outlawing CrossFit due to the injuries it can cause. The issue arises when individuals without experience in these activities dictate what others should do. Whether it involves drugs, physical activities, or other pursuits, there are numerous activities that could be labeled as harmful.

I advocate for freedom, believing that there is no all-knowing entity that understands the correct path for all human beings. There are pros and cons to every activity, and almost anything can be abused. For example, while moderate jogging can be beneficial, one might argue that ultramarathons should be outlawed due to the severe health risks involved. However, individuals should have the autonomy to pursue their interests, whether that involves smoking marijuana, running long distances, or engaging in any other activity they choose.

Unless we embrace this notion of personal freedom, we will continue to face the consequences of a nanny state, a concept that has persisted since the era of prohibition in this country. There are numerous activities that are illegal yet do not pose a significant risk to health, with cannabis being one of the most egregious examples.

I completely agree with this perspective, and it is crucial for people to remain vigilant. Making something illegal often seems like a good idea at the time, which is why such decisions are made.

=> 00:52:14

Embrace your freedom to choose, whether it's running 100 miles or enjoying something others deem illegal. The real danger lies in the restrictions we impose on ourselves.

Because you decided to run 100 miles, that's your choice in life. You should do what you want, whether it's smoking marijuana, running 100 miles, or doing whatever the [ __ ] you want. 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. Currently, there are many things that will never kill you that are illegal, with cannabis being one of the big ones. This is the most preposterous situation.

I completely agree with you, and I think one thing that people must 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. Since we last spoke, over 70 drugs have been scheduled, and over 60 of them are in schedule one. They have no real benefits.

You might ask, "Like what?" Well, they're all bad drugs, so don't worry about it; they're all the bad ones. It's just fentanyl derivatives—those are the bad ones. Of course, they schedule those as schedule one. Who would want to defend some new fentanyl? Fentanyl kills people, so we have to make them all illegal. And then there are synthetic cannabinoids—those are horrible, so let’s make them all illegal too. Some stimulants are also included; those are terrible, so let’s make those illegal as well.

It's very hard to undo these things. It seems like the right thing to do when you do it, but 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 or recognizing 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.

When we're caught up in a hysteria, it always seems like the right thing to do to crack down. Of course, opioids are bad; we have to make them all illegal because people are dying as a result. But that's always been the way we thought. We thought that with psychedelics in the 60s and with PCP derivatives in the 70s. Then we realized that we had made a mistake, that maybe the science was flawed, and that we hadn't fully interrogated the therapeutic benefits that these substances have.

However, the biggest argument against all that thinking is cigarettes. There’s very little benefit, other than a cognitive boost, that you get from cigarettes. They are the leading preventable cause of death, killing half a million people every year in this country. We’re freaking out about heart attacks and strokes, and rightly so, yet we somehow skirt right over cigarettes. Imagine if cannabis was killing half a million people every year. Jesus Christ, could you imagine? People would be saying, "Hey man, just don't smoke so much; leave me my freedom." That would really be a crazy argument.

It's tricky, though, because I also don't want to be a drug elitist. Of course, I don't smoke cigarettes; I never have, and I don't think they're good. I discourage people from smoking cigarettes when I can, but I also believe people should have the right to smoke them and sell them. I have smoked cigarettes before comedy shows, and it’s wonderful.

You know who likes it? Dave Chappelle. I started smoking because I did a show with my friend Tony Hinchcliffe, back when he used to smoke. Now he just sucks on that Juul thing, which is probably a hundred times worse. When he was smoking cigarettes, I asked him why he smoked that thing. He said, "Get a nice rush before I go; give me one of those [ ] things." I was like, "No, you're going to get addicted." He replied, "I'm not going to get addicted; just give me a [ ] cigarette."

I smoked one and thought, "Ooh, this is a nice head rush!" I went on stage feeling great, like I had this nice head rush. It’s good right before you perform. Dave smokes a lot, but he smokes them before he goes on. He prefers those Native American Spirits; those are fine for you. They’ve got an Indian on it, so it’s all natural—don’t worry!

There’s a rush that you get when you smoke a cigarette before you go on stage, and it's really nice. I have zero fear about getting addicted to them. I smoked two the last time I did a show with him, but I haven’t smoked one since. You know, they’re nice right before a show, but I have never brought myself to buy a pack.

=> 00:56:05

Embracing the guilty pleasure: sometimes, the rush of a cigarette before a show feels like the perfect escape, even if it comes with a side of shame.

I remember the first time I smoked a cigarette; I thought, "going to get addicted just give me a cigarette." After I smoked, I felt a nice head rush. When I went on stage, I was like, "I feel great." It’s a nice head rush that’s good right before you perform. My friend Dave, who smokes a lot, usually has his cigarettes before he goes on stage. He prefers those Native American Spirits, which he claims are fine because they have an Indian on the pack and are all natural.

There’s definitely a rush that you get when you smoke a cigarette before going on stage, and I have zero fear about getting addicted to them. In fact, I smoked two the last time I performed with him, but I haven’t smoked one since. You know, they are nice right before a show, but I’ve never brought myself to buy them. I can’t seem to go into a store and say, "give me a pack of cigarettes." I think it’s a bad example for my kids. If they got into my car and asked, "Daddy, what the [__] is this? Is that a pack of cigarettes?" I would feel terrible.

Although I have never smoked cigarettes, I have been on and off a user of nicotine gum. That stuff is good, but it’s addictive too. My friend Donald Cerrone once brought in some chew, and I tried it. You get a nice little pick-me-up from it, but I accidentally swallowed it, not realizing what I was doing. I’ve done that before as well.

As for cigars, I have smoked those. I think they’re all right, but I feel very conflicted about nicotine because I really like it a lot. Right now, I have a cigar over there, and I’m sort of tempted. Okay, let’s have one, I said. That’s all I need to hear; I’m the devil. This is pure pressure, but it’s all good. Hamilton and I are going to enjoy some nicotine like Americans. We can do what we want; they can’t stop us.

Was it supposed to be bad for you? I asked Hamilton. He replied, "No, I'm a lover of tobacco; I think it's an amazing plant." I handed him a torch and a cigar, and he knew how to use it. Yes, sir, he said.

I then asked if he had ever participated in an ayahuasca ceremony where they blow tobacco on you. He replied that he had not, but he mentioned that part of the ceremony involves the shaman dancing around and blowing tobacco on you. I joked that he was probably just taking advantage of the fact that you’re out of your mind.

However, I noted that tobacco has a clarifying effect on the mind, especially during a psychedelic experience. Anything that clarifies the mind can be very useful to focus the trajectory of your thoughts. I was just kidding about that part, but it’s fascinating to think about how many people tobacco kills. It’s not entirely surprising, though, because life is difficult, and tobacco promotes a little bit of joy, focus, and relaxation in a very difficult existence.

I enjoy cigars, but I feel reluctant to admit that I like cigarettes before shows. Every time I talk about it, I hesitate and feel ashamed. I consider myself a pretty healthy person; I work out a lot, eat well, and take vitamins, but I still like cigarettes.

I then mentioned that I had a cigar from Foundation Cigars, giving them a shout-out for sending me some good stuff. This is one thing that worries me about the move to Spotify; on YouTube, I could fast forward over moments like this. I wondered if there are people listening who might be freaking out right now. However, I learned that you can fast forward on Spotify or change the speed of playback. They even have a little 15-second skip button.

Okay, alright, I said, acknowledging that this was a boring section of the podcast. I apologized to anyone who might be screaming in their car, "Are you really?" because we were just having a casual conversation.

=> 01:00:25

In a world flooded with advertising, it's our responsibility to navigate our choices wisely, because true freedom from influence is an illusion.

Work—what is this? This is a cigar from Foundation Cigars. Shout out to Foundation Cigars; they sent me some good stuff. This is the one thing that worries me about the move to Spotify. On YouTube, I could just fast forward over a moment like this, but are there people that are going to be listening?

You can just fast forward on Spotify. Oh, you can? Or like, you could change the speed of playback? Oh, I don't know if they have that. They have a little 15-second skip button too. Okay, all right, you can skip past that. Spotify is slowly but surely getting its act together when it comes to video playback and stuff. But yeah, this was a boring section of the podcast, and I apologize for anybody freaking out right now, screaming in their car. Are you really? You guys were having a really interesting conversation, and Rogan, you messed it up with the cigar.

That's nice. Well, it feels good, right? Yeah, nice. I mean, I remember when I was in high school; I went to a very progressive high school. At that time, in the early 2000s, there was a magazine called Adbusters that was very popular. Do you remember this? It was kind of like, "No, don't you know?" 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.

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. No amount of censorship will ever protect us from the advertising that pervades every dimension of our existence. Therefore, it is our responsibility to protect ourselves as much as possible because we'll never truly be free.

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. But then you get Juul. Is Juul better? Probably it is; I imagine that it is, but I don't think it is.

You don't think it is? No, I don't think it is. Well, I think there's a lot of lung damage, particularly with just unregulated vaping. There's a lot of vaping where you don't really know how they're making this oil, like what they're using to put together the nicotine. You know, like when you go to vape stores, you're just getting some vape stuff, and some of it causes serious lung damage to people. Oh yeah, I'm talking about a regulated product like Juul, but yeah, buying just like a jug of e-juice from a gas station is... juice? I think that's what they call it?

Is that what they call it? You dump it into your rig? I don't vape; I don't know. Some people—a friend of mine had one the other day, and it was like he was holding a cell phone from the 90s. I go, "What is that thing?" Remember when I bought you—I had to go get some for you? That's right; we were like, I didn't know what the heck we were even doing with it. Someone gave it to us.

Yeah, oh yeah, and I had to get the pieces for it. That's right; it was a robot dick I was sucking on. It was a ridiculous one. This cigar does not want to stay lit. Right? It's almost like maybe it's too moist in that humidor.

Yeah, there's been a lot of people that vape a lot who have had some serious lung issues—like real, real heavy-duty lung issues. I think most likely it's that e-juice that you're talking about—some unregulated stuff. You know, you're just making some weird mist with heat and sucking it into your lungs. Yeah, inhaling many milliliters of propylene glycol daily.

It's... 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 that said, nicotine gum's probably the best though, right? Seems like it's the best to me.

But the other thing—and this is something that Carl Hart doesn't talk about very much, and he probably would—this is maybe one thing that we would disagree on. I do think that dependence in and of itself is undesirable and disempowering, and I'm not talking about addiction; I'm not talking about...

=> 01:04:53

Dependence on substances can be disempowering, and while vaping might be safer than smoking, true freedom comes from breaking free of habits that hold you back.

With heat, you're sucking it into your lungs, inhaling many milliliters of propylene glycol daily. It's a concerning habit. I mean, yes, if I had to bet on vaping as 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. That said, nicotine gum is probably the best option, though, right? It seems like it's the best to me.

The other thing, and this is something that Carl Hart doesn't talk about very much, is that I do think that dependence in and of itself is undesirable and disempowering. I'm not talking about addiction or about destroying your life or family; I'm just talking about being dependent on a habit. Having addiction is undesirable and should be avoided. That's a good call. He has 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.

The way he describes it is interesting; 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—like it's not that big a deal. I haven't experienced it either, and I think it's funny how it's often the things that I haven't experienced that I'm most likely to disagree with somebody on. You must be American, so that gives me pause. I don't want to just say, "I don't know about that," but I certainly have known many people. I've lived with someone who struggled very severely with opioid addiction, and it's just context-dependent.

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. I think that's an interesting idea, and I don't doubt that he was able to do that. However, there's a big difference between doing something for three weeks, three months, or three years. It depends on the dose, the support network, and pre-existing psychological and medical conditions that may be contributing to the user's choice to use this stuff in the first place. For a lot of people, it might start with back pain or something like that. You start taking the opioid, and it helps you become dependent. 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. It makes it very hard for people, so I do have a lot of compassion for those who get mixed up in that.

That said, 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 was problematic. Everyone acted like it was a big surprise that they were addictive. We found evidence that Purdue knew oxycodone was addictive, and they knew this all along. This is the thing that I find a little bit difficult to stomach. People have known that opioids produce dependence 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 194. In 1914, there was a medical term for oxycodone addiction called "ucadm" because the brand name for oxycodone at that time was "ucad." 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 I, as a high school student in Massachusetts, had an intuitive awareness that Percocet was a recreational drug. Percocet was a drug that, if you got a prescription for it, was going to be fun and enjoyable. Yet somehow, these people who studied medicine were so unaware. 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 manipulated the system. They infiltrated medical education and changed the very way that pain was conceptualized, shifting from saying that it was something that you had to deal with to something that should be treated compassionately. This caused a fundamental philosophical shift in the medical community—an impressive maneuver for them to have pulled off.

=> 01:09:09

Personal responsibility is key; blaming pharmaceutical companies alone disempowers us and ignores the role of doctors and patients in recognizing addiction.

The discussion surrounding Percocet reveals an intuitive awareness that it is often perceived as a recreational drug. Many people believe that obtaining a prescription for it will lead to an enjoyable experience. However, there seems to be a significant lack of awareness among those who studied medicine. While pharmaceutical companies certainly bear a large portion of the blame for their unethical practices, it is essential to recognize that they manipulated the medical education system. They altered the conceptualization of pain, shifting the perspective from something that should be endured to something that requires compassionate treatment. This manipulation resulted in a fundamental philosophical shift within the medical community, which is quite an impressive maneuver.

Nevertheless, it raises the question: at what point are doctors responsible for failing to recognize their patients' dependence on these medications? Additionally, at what point do individuals need to take responsibility for acknowledging their own dependence? If we place all the blame on pharmaceutical companies, we adopt a disempowering position that ultimately fails to protect us in the future. There will always be someone trying to sell us something harmful to our health, and to some extent, it will always be our responsibility to protect ourselves.

So, do you think the responsibility lies with the doctors, the patients, or a combination of both? It is indeed a combination of both, along with the pharmaceutical companies. It is crucial to understand that there is nothing mysterious about oxycodone addiction; this should not have been a surprise to anyone. Oxycodone is a simple derivative of morphine, which has been known for thousands of years. The chemical class known as morphinans includes morphine, heroin, oxycodone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, and oxymorphone, all of which are quite similar.

The notion that no one could have predicted the consequences of these drugs is difficult to accept and represents a dangerous oversimplification of the issue. If we merely point fingers at a "bad guy," we avoid assuming personal responsibility. This mindset allows individuals to overlook the possibility that their physicians may have been complicit in actions that harmed their mental and physical health. It is easy to blame Mortimer Sackler and Purdue Pharmaceuticals for the situation, but this narrative is overly simplistic.

Moreover, there exists an infantilization of our society. People often claim ignorance regarding the dangers of substances, such as cigarettes, despite the long-standing knowledge of their harmful effects. Many individuals do not take responsibility for what they consume and assume that those using these substances have no knowledge of the risks involved. Today, with the internet at our fingertips, it is easier than ever to research medications while waiting for a doctor's appointment. For instance, if a doctor prescribes Vicodin, one could quickly Google the medication and discover potential issues, such as constipation.

In a recent experience, I was watching a show that featured a commercial for a migraine medication. The upbeat music played in the background, promoting the idea that taking one of these pills a month could prevent migraines. However, the commercial then transitioned to listing the potential side effects, which often raises concerns about the medications we are encouraged to take.

=> 01:12:57

Pharmaceutical ads can mislead us with upbeat tunes while hiding serious risks, revealing a troubling truth about our healthcare system.

The discussion begins with a casual mention of searching for information online, leading to concerns about vikin and constipation. The speaker reflects on a show they were watching recently, expressing discomfort with certain commercials. They specifically mention a commercial for migraine medicine, which features upbeat, cheery music while listing potential side effects. This juxtaposition is unsettling, as the commercial casually mentions severe consequences such as death and constipation that may require medical attention. The speaker finds it odd that such advertisements are allowed, especially since only two countries in the world—the United States and New Zealand—permit the advertising of pharmaceutical drugs on television.

The speaker acknowledges the legal requirement to disclose side effects but questions the ethics of such advertising. They express a conflict between the need for personal responsibility and the influence of pervasive advertisements. This leads to a discussion about the complexities of medical interventions and how they might be better communicated to doctors rather than directly to consumers.

To illustrate their point, the speaker contrasts the case of oxycodone in the United States with a lesser-known story from France involving an antidepressant called amineptine. Unlike most antidepressants, amineptine has a mild stimulant action, which the speaker has personally found pleasant at therapeutic doses. They describe it as a low potency dopamine reuptake inhibitor, although they admit it has been some time since they reviewed the literature.

Initially, amineptine is well-received for its stimulant effects, similar to Wellbutrin in the U.S., which many people appreciate for providing energy alongside depression treatment. However, problems arise when users begin taking extremely high doses, leading to addiction and hepatotoxicity—damage to the liver. Additionally, the drug causes severe dermatological toxicity, resulting in grotesque lesions on the body, including the face and genitals. Consequently, amineptine is removed from the market and replaced with a non-addictive alternative known as tianeptine.

Tianeptine is intriguing because it is marketed as a serotonin reuptake enhancer, which is the opposite mechanism of action compared to Prozac and other conventional SSRIs. The speaker recalls writing an article for Playboy about the peculiar nature of having two antidepressants with opposing pharmacologies that both provide therapeutic effects. However, it is later revealed that the pharmaceutical company did not disclose that tianeptine also acts as a full agonist at the MU opioid receptor, sharing pharmacological properties with morphine and heroin. Many users of this antidepressant reported that it felt similar to heroin, raising significant concerns about the implications of such undisclosed information.

=> 01:16:48

Pharmaceuticals can mask their true nature, leading us to believe we're taking one thing when we're actually consuming another, often with dangerous consequences.

The mechanism of Prozac and every conventional SSRI anti-depressant is quite interesting and strange. I even wrote a little article for Playboy years ago about how the mind sure is strange, particularly regarding the fact that you can have these two anti-depressants with opposing pharmacologies that both exert a therapeutic effect.

As it turns out, the pharmaceutical company Cier had not disclosed that TNEP was also a full agonist at the MU opioid receptor, meaning it essentially shared a pharmacology with morphine and heroin. This was a significant revelation because many individuals taking this anti-depressant reported, "Yeah, this stuff works really well, but you know, I used to use heroin, and like I swear this stuff feels kind of like heroin to me." People on various forums would dismiss these claims, insisting, "Oh sure, sure, sure, it feels like heroin, but it's just serotonin reuptake inhibition, that's that."

This conversation continued, with some users taking huge quantities and noting symptoms such as, "I don't know what it is about this stuff, but I'm itchy, my pupils are pinpoints, and I'm extremely, extremely high when I take this serotonergic anti-depressant." Eventually, someone overdosed on the medication, which is actually pretty safe in high doses. A physician injected them with naloxone, or Narcan, the opioid antagonist, and it reversed the effect. I remember reading that case report and thinking, "Huh, wow, this serotonergic drug produces an intoxication that is reversed by an opioid antagonist." It was a curious and very strange situation.

An acquaintance at Columbia, named Andrew Krugle, began looking into the pharmacology of this drug. He discovered that it primarily exerts its effect via the MU opioid receptor, and that the pharmaceutical company had not informed the public of this fact. Consequently, all these people who believed they were taking a serotonergic anti-depressant were actually consuming an opioid. This drug was never approved in the United States, and I believe this instance exemplifies unacceptable pharmaceutical deception—where a company tells someone that a drug does one thing when, in fact, it does something entirely different.

In contrast, with oxycodone, it’s a bit harder to argue the same point because it has been used for over a hundred years, and people were already aware of its addictive properties. The argument was made that it was less addictive due to its time-release formulation, which is a complicated issue. In many cases, the slow release of a compound can indeed reduce its potential for abuse.

Regarding Narcan, it is the substance that EMTs use when they find someone suffering from an overdose. It is available in an injectable form, and there’s also a nasal spray formulation. When EMTs find someone spazzing, they can simply administer it up the nose, and the individual is often alright. The mechanism works because Narcan is a very high-affinity antagonist at the same receptor that heroin binds to, allowing it to displace heroin and reverse its effects.

However, it’s important to note that Narcan not only sobers individuals up but also precipitates instantaneous withdrawal, which can be very uncomfortable for many people. It’s not just a matter of taking it and feeling fine; instead, you take it and experience withdrawal. A lesser-known issue arises when people overdose, receive Narcan, go into withdrawal, and then use again to alleviate the pain from withdrawal. The half-life of Narcan can be shorter than some opioids, meaning that by the time Narcan wears off, the original opioid that caused the overdose can still be in the system, leading to a potential second overdose.

When it comes to mitigating withdrawal effects, there are indeed various chemicals that can help. One notable drug is Loperamide, branded as Imodium, which was designed by Jansen Pharmaceuticals. What many people don’t know about Imodium is that it is a super potent opioid that was formulated to never enter the brain. It exerts all the effects of an opioid on the peripheral system without causing any central nervous system effects that lead to euphoria. However, at extremely high doses, it can enter the brain, but that’s a separate issue.

As for its effectiveness as a pain reliever, Imodium does not work for pain relief unless taken in extraordinarily high doses.

=> 01:20:42

Understanding the complexities of opioids is crucial; they're not just good or bad, but a nuanced class of drugs that can offer both relief and risk.

Anything that mitigates withdrawal effects is a topic of significant interest. Is there some sort of a chemical that you can take? Oh, yes! There are all sorts of things. The most common is a brilliant drug designed at Jansen Pharmaceuticals called Loperamide, brand named Imodium. I'm sure you've heard of Imodium. What most people don't know about Imodium is that it's a super potent opioid. It's an opioid that was designed so that it never enters the brain, exerting 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 issue.

Does it work as a pain reliever for people? No, unless you take extraordinarily high doses. Its main effect is on intestinal motility, causing the constipation of an opioid without any of the psychological euphoria-inducing effects. It's a beautiful piece of drug design and medicinal chemistry. This can mitigate the gastrointestinal symptoms of opioid withdrawal.

There are also a number of sedatives, such as benzodiazepines, that people will take to address various concerns. Additionally, there is tapering, and there are definitely treatment strategies out there. You're not hopeless if you find yourself in the midst of this. There are also different opioids. We often talk about opioids as a monolithic entity, labeling them as bad or problematic. However, opioids are a pharmacological class that has a very diverse potential in all sorts of different directions.

The same chemist at Columbia was doing research on an anti-depressant opioid that I was describing. Interestingly, even though the pharmacology was somewhat misrepresented by the pharmaceutical company, it did exert an anti-depressant effect. He was even able to show that it had certain spinogenesis-inducing effects, meaning it causes the growth of dendritic spines on neurons.

However, when he was trying to get investors interested in some derivatives of TNF that he made, he found that opiophobia had become so great in our culture that people were not interested in it, even if it was a potentially valuable anti-depressant. This highlights the importance of having a balanced perspective on these issues. If we're not careful and balanced, the pendulum will continuously swing to different extremes. At one point, we might decide it's acceptable for everyone to use opioids as much as they want, which was kind of what happened at the beginning of the so-called opioid crisis.

Then, there’s a compensatory backswing where people realize the dangers, leading to regulations. The chronic pain community will then argue that they need this medication to function, insisting that they cannot be cut off from opioids just because of the epidemic of misuse. This back-and-forth continues endlessly, and there is no definitive answer.

I would like to think that what I have just shared is a pretty balanced perspective, but I’m sure there will be numerous people who will be angry at me for it. Some may think that I view opioids as evil, while others may feel I was too hard on them. This is a really polarizing issue, much like everything else these days.

What you just said is one of the reasons why you must stay in media. There aren't many people who can articulate the pharmacological effects, along with the pros and cons, in a balanced way like you just did. You are being very objective about these matters, providing a fact-based, science-based analysis of the realities of drug use and efficacy. This is important, Hamilton. There aren’t many people who know what you know, and it is crucial that you can express yourself in this way.

Thank you, that’s nice of you to say. I just hope that as many people as possible will remember the lessons of the past. They shouldn’t hope away these issues because such hysterias have never helped anyone and have caused incalculable human suffering. We can talk about the tragedies of the so-called crack epidemic, which generated the sentencing disparity. It’s safe to say that the number of people who have been imprisoned and had their lives destroyed is staggering.

=> 01:24:32

The real story behind drug hysteria often reveals a deeper truth about systemic issues, not the drugs themselves.

In a science-based analysis of the pros and cons and the realities of the use and efficacy of these drugs, it is important to recognize the insights shared by Hamilton. He notes that there's not a lot of people that know what you know, and emphasizes the significance of being able to express these thoughts clearly. Hamilton expresses hope that as many people as possible will remember the lessons of the past, warning against the dangers of hysteria, which he believes have never helped anyone and have instead caused incalculable human suffering.

He reflects on the tragedies of the so-called crack epidemic, which generated sentencing disparity. Hamilton asserts that the number of people that have been imprisoned and have had their lives destroyed due to minor drug offenses is staggering. He highlights the impact of such policies, stating that families have been torn apart and employment opportunities dashed to pieces because individuals possessed a small amount of a substance derived from a South American plant. He argues that this approach is just nuts and ultimately ineffective.

Hamilton shares a compelling story about Charles Inis, a figure often cited in drug scare narratives. Inis is described as the quintessential drug scare story character, infamous for smoking angel dust and allegedly tearing out both of his eyes, becoming the poster child for the horrors of PCP. Hunter S. Thompson wrote about Inis in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, discussing the media frenzy surrounding his case in 1971. The message was clear: don't smoke PCP; you could end up like Charles Inis, the man who tore out his eyes.

However, Hamilton recounts a surprising turn of events when he received an email from Charles Inis himself. Initially skeptical, he thought it was a troll, but after speaking on the phone, he confirmed that it was indeed the real Charles Inis. At the time of their conversation, Inis was in his 70s or 80s, having been a student at Johns Hopkins University in his early 20s during the 1970s.

Inis shared a story that contradicted the media portrayal of his life. Instead of a tale about the horrors of PCP, it was a narrative about police brutality. He explained that he was a low-level weed dealer in Baltimore in the 60s who had been set up by police officers. They had coerced him into bringing cocaine to a supposed drug deal to prove he wasn't an undercover cop. When he rejected the inferior quality hash they offered, he was tackled, arrested, and charged with possession of cocaine, despite not having purchased any cannabis.

Inis successfully defended himself against the charges, which angered the Baltimore Police Department. Following this, a local informant offered him a drug that was supposedly not PCP, claiming it was a new psychedelic. Unbeknownst to Inis, he was being set up again. When the police raided his apartment, he panicked and consumed the entire canister of the substance, leading to further complications in his life. This story illustrates the complexities and often overlooked realities surrounding drug use and law enforcement.

=> 01:28:52

The good guy/bad guy mentality distorts our understanding of morality, trapping us in a cycle of judgment that overlooks the complexities of human behavior.

The Baltimore Police Department is involved in a troubling situation, primarily because they feel embarrassed by recent events. A local individual, whom he suspects to be a police informant, contacts him and expresses sympathy for what he has experienced. This person offers him a gift: a drug that is described as a psychedelic, which is like acid and sprayed onto parsley. He assures him that it is not angel dust or PCP, but rather an amazing new psychedelic that will "blow your mind."

Curious, he accepts the canister of this plant material and places it on his shelf. However, an hour later, the police raid his apartment, leading him to realize he has been set up once again. In a panic, he consumes the entire contents of the canister, fearing arrest for possession. The drug, PCP, is a powerful dissociative anesthetic, and as a result, he loses consciousness and blacks out entirely. The police lock him up without any medical supervision, and in his delirious state, he severely damages his eyes, leading to permanent vision loss. This incident is often cited as a cautionary tale against using PCP, despite the fact that it is a story of someone who was entrapped, neglected, and abused—a narrative that has nothing to do with the drug itself.

Such stories are not extraordinary; they happen all the time. Drugs serve as an effective scapegoat, allowing society to diminish individuals, portraying them as weak or morally deficient. The moment we abandon these stigmas, they can no longer be used as tools against us. This situation highlights one of the main arguments against criminalizing drugs: it only serves to prop up organized crime. The ongoing issues with Mexican cartels and figures like Pablo Escobar and El Chapo exemplify this reality. Moreover, law enforcement often exploits drugs to arrest individuals, such as planting small amounts of drugs on unsuspecting people, which allows them to evade accountability.

The problem extends beyond merely distinguishing between good and bad cops; it can corrupt law enforcement as a whole. Even a good cop can become a bad cop under these circumstances, as the enforcement of these laws distorts the fundamental idea of protecting people. There exists an implicit hypocrisy in arresting individuals for victimless crimes, which inevitably distorts one’s thinking. In our culture, we only allow two groups—cops and children—to discuss the world in terms of good guys and bad guys. Children lack the maturity to comprehend the complexities of human behavior, leading them to categorize individuals simply as good or bad.

For law enforcement, this binary thinking is psychologically necessary. Without it, how could they justify arresting someone for stealing an iPad, for instance? If they considered the context—such as the individual’s lack of financial resources, a broken public education system, and the absence of role models—they might realize that this person is not inherently bad. This philosophical idea, that no one knowingly does wrong, is rarely discussed but is crucial. The good guy-bad guy mentality permeates our culture and influences law enforcement practices.

In the lesser-known Socratic dialogue called Gorgias, Socrates articulates the notion that no man knowingly does wrong. This perspective raises complex questions about morality and justice. While it is a slippery slope, as taking this idea too far could lead to a lack of accountability, it is essential to recognize that every action is often justifiable in the mind of the individual committing it.

=> 01:33:12

We need to rethink our understanding of accountability; not everyone who commits a crime is a "bad person"—many are shaped by circumstances beyond their control.

Course not, it's not a bad person at all. However, if you think that, then you would never be able to arrest anyone because you would only be considering the fact that no one really knowingly does wrong. This is an important philosophical idea that I don't think is discussed enough. The good guy bad guy mentality is permeating our culture. There is an interesting Socratic dialogue that isn't talked about all that much called Gorgias, in which Socrates articulates this basic idea that no man knowingly does wrong. The notion that there aren't bad guys is significant, but I understand that this is a slippery slope. If you go down that road too far, you might never punish anyone for anything because you recognize that every action is justifiable in the mind of the perpetrator.

This brings us to the argument of determinism. Robert Sapolsky, a prominent psychologist, once said that he believes that in the future, we will look back on our culture and feel that we made a tremendous mistake by punishing people for their actions. The concept of determinism suggests that we really don't have free will; rather, what we perceive as free will is the result of an accumulation of experiences, education, genetics, and all the different things that have happened to us that led us to this point. The idea that you are responsible for all of these factors, especially if you have been abused or harmed, is a complex issue.

As Sapolsky pointed out, if we want to maintain a polite and safe society, we cannot simply allow people to run around committing violent acts. We must take action against crime. However, he acknowledges that this is a complicated issue, and he does not have a definitive answer, nor do I think anyone can, given the multitude of variables and unique situations involved. He believes that we will eventually look back on the notion that individuals are solely responsible for their actions—particularly those who grew up in impoverished, crime-ridden neighborhoods—as a misguided perspective.

The situation is indeed slippery. Bill Cosby once presented a bootstrapping argument, suggesting that the real issue is a cultural one. Ben Shapiro echoes this sentiment, stating that the core problem lies within the culture itself. He argues that if we could just eliminate rap music, we would address the issue of inner-city crime. While there is some truth to the idea that culture plays a role, it oversimplifies a super complex issue.

We must also consider that many of these communities have never fully recovered from the legacy of slavery. They transitioned from slavery in the 1800s to the Jim Crow era, then to the Civil Rights era, and still face challenges today. In places like Baltimore, Detroit, or the South Side of Chicago, we see persistent crime and violence that has plagued these areas for decades without significant intervention.

Reflecting on the response to the coronavirus pandemic, I was frustrated by the decision to spend trillions of dollars to support businesses that lost money during that time. Yet, what about the communities that have been struggling for generations? The idea that individuals growing up in violent, gang-infested neighborhoods have the same opportunities as those in the suburbs of Massachusetts is simply nonsensical. There is a glaring lack of emphasis in our national dialogue on addressing the root problems faced by these communities. Too many people are suffering from birth, and this is a critical issue that we need to confront.

=> 01:37:27

The real challenge isn't just about overcoming personal struggles; it's about dismantling the systemic barriers that trap entire communities in cycles of poverty and violence.

The beginning of the coronavirus pandemic drove me crazy, particularly regarding the decisions made about economic relief. They decided that they needed to spend trillions of dollars to relieve businesses that had lost a lot of money during the pandemic. However, I questioned, what about these really super communities that have been struggling forever? The idea that people growing up in these communities, filled with gangs and violence, have the same shot as someone growing up in the suburbs of Massachusetts is nonsense. It's a crazy thought.

There is no emphasis at all in terms of a national dialogue about this issue. Here’s our number one problem: too many people are literally born into horrible environments where they have a very slim chance of ever overcoming the influences of their surroundings. The notion that individuals will just figure this out on their own is crazy. The statistics show that very few people manage to escape these circumstances, whether they are athletes, entertainers, or others who make it out of the hood.

This brings me to the argument I always had about the idea of making America great again. It sounds great, but the reality is that to make America great, we need less losers. To achieve that, we must fix these crime-ridden, impoverished communities. Until we do that, blaming individuals from these environments is unjust, especially when compared to someone who grows up in a loving, two-parent household. It’s a totally different world, with totally different programming and totally different environments.

Moreover, we have laws that are explicitly designed to oppress certain people, such as the crack sentencing laws. I remember an article published by the New York Times that I found very annoying. It suggested that new evidence indicated one of the early arrests of George Floyd for crack, preceding his murder, may have been conducted by a corrupt police officer, and perhaps he didn’t actually have crack after all. However, it doesn’t matter whether he had crack or not; he should have never been arrested for it in the first place. This situation exemplifies corruption, regardless of the specifics.

The narrative surrounding crack versus cocaine is also hilarious. When you say "crack," everyone reacts with shock, but if you say "coke," it’s perceived as just someone getting a little crazy. Pharmacologically, they are essentially the same. According to Carl Hart, both are just forms of cocaine. The disparity in sentencing remains a significant issue; Obama reduced the ratio from 100 to 1 to 18 to 1, but why is there any disparity at all?

This disparity is akin to the ridiculousness of being treated differently for possessing a bong versus a joint. No one would think that it’s reasonable to penalize someone harshly for having a bong, but the legal system treats these situations with disproportionate severity.

I spend so much time discussing these social aspects because I genuinely believe that this is one of the most pernicious yet fixable issues in our society. When everyone says "end white supremacy," I completely agree. However, I ask, how is that going to happen? It’s like saying "end badness" or "end meanness." While I support the end of both badness and meanness, these are nebulous concepts that cannot be addressed with a single intervention.

In contrast, there are specific problems associated with prohibition, healthcare, sentencing, and public education that can be tackled. Issues like teachers' unions are controversial, but they have created an environment that perpetuates these systemic problems.

=> 01:41:16

The fight against systemic issues like white supremacy requires addressing specific societal problems, not just calling for change without a plan.

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. When everyone is saying end white supremacy, it's like, of course, yeah, I agree, end white supremacy; that would be fantastic. But how? How is that going to happen? It's like saying end Badness or 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, health care, and sentencing. I mean, you know, public education, teachers' unions, and 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 very easy to have your life totally derailed by some little thing.

Well, this is why I think you need to stay in media because I think there are many people who 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 hear this from someone like you, who clearly understands what he's talking about, and then they realize that there still is this massive disparity in sentencing between having crack and having coke, they go, "Well, why is that?" Well, it's because poor people have crack. That's literally why. It doesn't make any sense; there's no logic to it at all. It's crazy.

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. Every single one—maybe not heroin, but you can get oxycodone. How do you get coke legally? Well, cocaine is actually scheduled two; you can get a prescription for it under some circumstances.

Most people might ask, "What are those circumstances?" A friend of mine mentioned that his grandfather was an optic surgeon who had cocaine that he would use as a topical anesthetic in some procedures. It is sometimes used off-label for treatment of cluster headaches. I knew someone that had cluster headaches who had a prescription for cocaine. That's very uncommon, though.

Well, that's a good one too because you can't really prove it. What do you do when they give you coke for cluster headaches? In his case, he did snort it. Hilarious, right? Of course, it is hilarious because, you know, ten years ago, if you'd said, "Listen doctor, I'm really, really depressed and I snort ketamine three times a week, and it's just amazing; it's helping me not be depressed anymore," they would say you're insane. They would say you have a problem, and you have to go to a treatment center. This is dangerous; you can't be snorting drugs.

Now, using ketamine snorted three times a week is an FDA approved treatment for depression that is sold by Johnson and Johnson. It's nuts! I have a friend who's a veteran who was just telling me on the phone yesterday about his use of ketamine—therapeutic use of ketamine through a physician via IV—and how much it benefited him. He said, "In the beginning, it's just like alleviating your shitty feelings and depression." That's the initial effect of it.

He said, "But then it gets into this thing where he's sorting out his life and recognizing problems that he has in his life and then identifying fairly clear solutions that he can take action to fix those problems." He said it gives him a way to organize his life, and it was a really interesting conversation because I never had anybody put it to me that way.

I know quite a few friends who have used ketamine over the last six or seven years from doctors prescribing them ketamine with varied effects. Some of them found it really helped them a lot. My friend Neil Brennan had a great take on it. He was one of the first people I ever heard do it, and he tried a bunch of different things for depression. He said, "I go to the doctor, and he puts me in a chair and gives me an IV trip of ketamine, and I'm tripping my brains out. I can't even believe this is legal! I can't believe this is happening. I'm going to a doctor, and I'm tripping my brains out." I asked him, "Wow, is that helping you?" He said, "A lot, yes.

=> 01:45:22

Exploring the boundaries of mental health treatment reveals that sometimes the most unconventional methods can lead to profound healing, challenging our fears of altered states in the process.

I know quite a few friends who have used ketamine over the last six or seven years, prescribed by doctors. The effects have varied; for some, it has really helped them a lot. My friend Neil Brennan had a great take on it. He was one of the first people I ever heard talk about it, and he has tried a bunch of different things for depression. He described his experience, saying, “I go to the doctor, and he puts me in a chair and gives me an IV trip of heroin—or of ketamine—and I am tripping balls. I can't even believe this is legal. I can't believe this is happening. I'm going to a doctor, and I'm tripping my brains out.” I asked him, “Wow, is that helping you?” He replied, “A lot, yes, it's helping me.”

The fact that you can go to a doctor and have a full-blown psychedelic experience is quite remarkable. However, it is sad that for so long, we have tried to strip these effects out of drugs as much as possible because we have decided that it's an unacceptable side effect. But is it really unacceptable if it helps you not want to die? Isn’t it worth it to feel a small amount of intoxication? For many people, it is obviously desirable. Yet, because we are so afraid of these altered states, we have promoted the creation of SSRI type drugs that don't really do much to your consciousness. They have very subtle effects that may make you a little bit high.

When asked about my experiences with SSRIs, I mentioned that I have taken them but never for long periods. I took Prozac for maybe three weeks, but you actually have to take it for weeks to exert a therapeutic effect. 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. I was not depressed when I took it. I have had friends who took it for depression—not Prozac, but other SSRIs—and they reported positive effects. However, I also have friends who felt numb, as if a car could crash right in front of them, and they would just say, “Oh, look, car crash,” and keep walking. They’d rather feel bad than feel numb.

I think it varies widely, of course. Depression is not one disorder, and we will increasingly appreciate that many of the things we label with one term are probably very dissimilar clinical entities. If you look at depression and wonder why it works for some people and not for others, it’s because they are different people with different underlying issues that we are calling depression. Yes, there are different symptoms that we agree constitute depression, but that doesn’t mean that depression is the same thing, caused by the same factors, or treated with the same chemicals. This is another reason why I think it’s really important to have a wide array of treatments available; you never know what might be the thing that helps you.

As for ketamine, I was asked if it is schedule one. I replied, “No, ketamine is similar to PCP, very similar.” The difference lies in the chemical structure; ketamine has an N-methyl group, while PCP has a piperidine ring. On the aromatic ring, ketamine has a chlorine atom, and on the cyclohexane ring, ketamine has a ketone. There are three points of modification, and ketamine is modified on every ring. The major experiential difference is that ketamine has a shorter duration than PCP and is arguably more psychedelic, depending on the dose.

At high doses, ketamine becomes very difficult to move; you are not inclined to move at all. In fact, you basically can't walk at all at a high dose. This is amusing because people often talk about it as a dance drug or a social drug, but I find it to be a profoundly antisocial drug. At a lower dose, ketamine has an alcohol-like effect, feeling more or less like you’ve had a couple of drinks. As the dose increases, you start to recede into yourself and enter something akin to a lucid dream, where the imagery becomes increasingly abstract. Unlike classical psychedelics, ketamine doesn’t tend to have the same archetypal experiences.

=> 01:49:25

Ketamine may be seen as a social drug, but at higher doses, it reveals a deeply introspective and often antisocial experience, taking you to a bizarre realm of consciousness that feels uniquely your own.

At all, at a high dose, which is funny because people talk about it as like a dance drug or a social drug. I find it to be a profoundly antisocial drug. It's ketamine. Yeah, yeah. 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. 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, ketamine doesn't tend to have the same sort of archetypal experiences. For instance, 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, geometric imagery, and things that feel beautiful and connected to humanity and nature. However, there's something about the dissociative anesthetics that tends to be a bit more random and a bit weirder. It doesn't feel like you're entering a numinous holy realm as much as entering a different channel of consciousness that is bizarre and otherwise inaccessible.

Terence McKenna described it like being in a brand new office building, but no one's in the building. Yes, I know, it's weird. Well, he had a certain bias there; everyone has their biases. His bias was, of course, toward plants because he saw them as a sort of... 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 alone; you're somehow interfacing with all the various trips that all the people have done with whatever these drugs are.

That was one of the things that I think he was referring to when he was talking about ketamine. A relatively small amount of people, at least when he was alive, 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.

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. So if you have a new substance that has no cultural associations, then maybe it was like that for... you have expectations. You don't have expectations; that's a big part of it, isn't it? It's a huge part of it.

I made a piece in the new season of my show about 5-MeO-DMT containing toad venom, and there's a big controversy in the toad venom community, which, believe it or not, is a community. There are purists who are... are they friends with the opiophiles? Oh, definitely not. No, they don't like the opiophiles. So what does the venom community think? 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, and before 5-MeO-DMT was made illegal in the United States, 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 bufotenine, but it's a minuscule amount of a less potent molecule. So predominantly, you have 5-MeO-DMT, which is likely the strongest naturally occurring serotonergic psychedelic. 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, like 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. I know people who have toads for that very reason because Mike Tyson talked about those toads. Now they have toads, and they milk these toads. Oh yeah, me too. I talked with a billionaire who flew a private jet full of toads.

=> 01:53:55

The terrifying void of 5-MeO-DMT teaches you more about yourself than any high can.

Bufotenine is a minuscule amount of a less potent molecule, so predominantly, you have 5-MeO-DMT, which is likely the strongest naturally occurring serotonergic psychedelic. For conservation purposes, it is necessary that people stop milking toads because it has become too popular. Mike Tyson talks about it all the time, and it may sound ridiculous, but if a celebrity says they like something, that can have a tangible effect on the environment. I know people who have toads for that very reason; because Mike Tyson talked about those toads, they now have toads and milk them.

I also spoke with a billionaire who flew a private jet full of toads to Greece to create a private toad sanctuary. Wow! I saw photos of it, but the photos didn’t look like that many toads; it didn’t look like a jet full. 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 cease to exist. 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.

I felt like I didn’t have thoughts; I knew I was experiencing the 5-MeO-DMT realm, but I didn’t have any context. I didn’t realize I was on my couch sitting at home; I was just gone. There were no visuals, just this white, pixelated, grayish-white gone world. It was terrifying because it felt like death. The one thing that felt the most like, “Oh my God, now I don’t exist anymore.” However, coming back from it, I think it was very valuable. As I was returning, I remember thinking a lot about the way in which I communicate.

I realized that so much of the way I talk was not just about getting my thoughts across, but also about trying to say things in a way that would be impressive or flowery, trying to make it look like I was more intelligent than I was. I remember thinking clearly that I needed to clean up the way I talk, feeling like I was full of nonsense. As I was trying to figure out how to describe this experience, I realized that I needed to change how I express myself. I did it a few times; I think I did it three times, but it was terrifying every time.

While I was gone, I remember just thinking, “This is not good; I really messed up. I really died or I really stopped being here.” It also makes you think, “Maybe this is what they talk about when they say you’re going to the light when you die.” It’s really disturbing but then pretty peaceful when it’s over; it felt good when I came back. The concept of giving away all of my control of reality like that is unsettling. For some reason, NN-DMT doesn’t scare me as much; it’s a totally different drug.

Experientially and chemically, NN-DMT is closer to DMT than 5-MeO-DMT is. Mushrooms are closer chemically speaking as well. I think that 5-MeO-DMT 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 dissociations. It’s extremely difficult to communicate that to someone. With 5-MeO-DMT, there’s nothing, and that’s also hard to convey; you white out, and there’s an absence of everything completely.

Do you find it terrifying? I have found it terrifying, yes. I had a very profound experience with it in 2017, and I have no real desire to use it again. That’s my thought too; it’s like I’m not going back there. I’ll go back to NN-DMT; I’ll go back to that because it’s just a different drug entirely. I think that DMT can be integrated into a normal life much more easily than 5-MeO-DMT. I credit DMT with helping me through the sort of COVID denial I had at the beginning of the pandemic. I was thinking, “We can’t stop making my TV show; we’re all going to get it anyway. We can’t just stop working; we can’t shut down the world. We can’t stop flying.” Then, I smoked DMT and had a profound realization.

=> 01:58:18

Facing the void can be terrifying, but sometimes it’s the only way to strip away denial and find peace in reality.

The absence of everything can be a terrifying experience, and I have found it terrifying as well. In fact, I had a very profound experience with it in 2017, which left me with no real desire to use it again. That's my thought too; it's like I'm not going back there. However, I would consider going back to NN DMT because it's just a different drug entirely. I believe that DMT can be integrated into a normal life much more easily than 5-MeO-DMT.

I credit DMT with helping me confront my COVID denial at the beginning of the pandemic. I was in a state of denial, thinking, "I can't stop making my TV show; we're all going to get it anyway. We can't just stop working; we can't shut down the world." Then, I smoked DMT and had this image of pangolins and horseshoe bats instead of angels and demons. Coming out of that experience, I realized, "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." That realization brought me so much more peace, as it stripped away the denial and allowed me to say, "All right, this is happening."

During that time, I was wrestling with the reality of having to shut down. I found myself resenting some other people on my team who, in retrospect, were behaving in a completely rational way. I thought, "Oh, come on, we're not going to go on this shoot, really?" But they were right, and I was wrong. I had to stop and accept the situation.

When discussing the differences between psilocybin and DMT, it's important to note that they are very close in structure. When you take psilocybin, a phosphate ester is metabolically cleaved, producing psilocin, which is the active metabolite. Psilocin and 5-Hydroxy DMT (5-HO-DMT) are very similar. The hydroxy group confers some protection from the enzyme MAO, which degrades DMT. The duration of the experience is obviously much longer, but they are chemically and experientially similar. The peak of a psilocin 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.

As for whether anyone has figured out a way to freebase psilocybin like DMT, it is possible, but it would still have a longer duration. It would have a faster onset but would last for two to three hours. This is because, when smoking it, you wouldn't cleave the hydroxy group that provides resistance to MAO, allowing it to enter the bloodstream and brain more rapidly without accelerating metabolic degradation.

You brought up something earlier that I really want to discuss: benzodiazepines. I'm sure you're aware of what happened with Jordan Peterson. Yes, I am. What did you think about that situation? To give some context, Jordan Peterson is not an average person; he is extraordinarily unusual and has had a very stressful life situation. He had pre-existing depression and went from being relatively unknown to becoming a household name and one of the most controversial figures in the world. He became a target for many who viewed him negatively, and it became fashionable for some to treat him as if he were the devil incarnate.

Imagine what that would feel like. People often lack empathy for public figures. For example, if a politician stumbles over their words, people might say, "What an idiot that guy is." They forget the immense pressure of knowing that every single word spoken will be dissected by angry individuals trying to prove that you are an idiot or a bad person. This pressure can stunt one's ability to communicate effectively.

While I haven't spoken with Jordan Peterson personally, I have talked with his daughter about it a couple of times. I can totally understand why he would start using benzodiazepines. He is giving talks to enormous audiences and is extremely controversial, knowing that every single thing he does will be scrutinized and criticized.

=> 02:02:34

Relying on substances for stress relief can hinder your ability to develop healthy coping strategies, making it harder to break free when you need to.

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. 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.

So, you know, without having spoken with Jordan Peterson personally, but having 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, and you can assume that every single thing you do is going to be eviscerated in the press. In such a high-pressure environment, you need to relax a little bit.

Then you have these chemicals—I believe it was Klonopin—and 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 that still exist. He has a drug that 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. 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 exacerbates those stresses. It becomes very tricky.

In addition to that, it sounds like he has some pre-existing psychological conditions that he's publicly spoken about. 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. It's very easy to get into trouble with them.

You know, like I said, I've never been a fan of opioids; I don't really like them at all. However, when I was a teenager, I was prescribed Klonopin. You have to keep that in mind. Physicians don’t tell you that; they say, “Oh, you got anxiety? Here, take this.” 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 at night without sleep, especially if 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 use cannabis for sleep or something else in the transitional period, and you can taper off. There are treatment strategies, and I've known lots of people who were dependent on benzodiazepines that now live normal lives, myself included. So, it's not a death sentence by any means, but it's something that people should recognize and treat with caution.

Is there a point where you take benzodiazepines for a longer period of time, making it more difficult to get off of them? Yes, there is. One thing that people often overlook, myself included, is that we tend to be pharmacological reductionists when we talk about this. We say, “Oh, you have some kind of neuronal change or some change in receptor density that accounts for this.” However, what also is changing is there's a psychological change where you're not developing healthy coping strategies. If you magnify that over months or years, those are months or years where you haven't figured out how to relax before bed or how to unwind, right?

Because you didn’t have to; you had a pill, and that pill was how you unwound before bed. A normal person might have a cup of tea with dinner at 9:00 p.m., but if you're going to take an ambient that night, it doesn’t matter if you had the tea. However, when you take ambient 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.

Long term, you also have psychological changes in your coping strategies, and that can be very hard for people. 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 damages 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. If you always used a benzodiazepine to cope, you might find it challenging to manage stress without it.

=> 02:06:27

Using substances can mask anxiety and hinder the development of healthy coping strategies, making it harder to face challenges without them.

At 9:00 p.m., I enjoy a cup of tea with dinner. Regardless of whether I take an Ambien that night, I will go to sleep. It doesn't matter if I had the tea; however, when you take Ambien out of the equation, you might have to be a little bit more careful about the choices that you make. You also need to have a bit of additional discipline.

In the long term, as I mentioned earlier, there are psychological changes in your coping strategies. This can be very hard for people. When discussing long-term problems resulting from drug abuse, many often assume that it's due to the drug being neurotoxic and damaging the brain. However, I believe that it can just as much be an issue of not adequately developing certain coping strategies because of drug use. For instance, if you always used a benzodiazepine when you were anxious, you may have never learned how to appropriately take a breath, relax, and manage your anxiety psychologically.

Now, regarding the individual trying to get off benzodiazepines, I learned from his daughter that during detox, he was also inhaling xenon gas, which is quite interesting. Do you know about xenon? I asked.

When Hamilton Morris returns, I plan to discuss xenon gas further. I asked if he had heard about it, and he confirmed that he knows the term. I joked, "You're on it right now!" Inhaling xenon gas doesn’t sound like something one should be doing; it seems like something you'd find in your basement that would require clearing your house out, similar to radon. I even Googled it, and oddly enough, a temperature screening unit popped up, which I found confusing.

Hamilton Morris, who has no notes in front of him, impressively discusses drugs off the top of his head. It’s remarkable how knowledgeable he is, and I expressed my hope that he would continue sharing his insights. He even gifted me a book titled The Psychedelic Toad of the Sonoran Desert, which is apparently an old book that has been republished. It’s authored by Ken Nelson, but it seems that this person is relatively unknown. The forward and updated edition is by Hamilton Morris, who is publishing it.

We laughed about how Mike Tyson is affecting ecology with his toad use. When Hamilton returned, I welcomed him back and mentioned that we were not allowing him to quit. I also wanted to hear the story behind the book he gave me.

We resumed our discussion about xenon gas. Hamilton explained that in the periodic table of elements, most elements are not drugs. In fact, very few single elements exert a pharmacological effect. The exceptions include lithium, which is used to treat bipolar disorder, and rubidium, which is used to treat depression in Italy. Xenon gas, however, is unique.

In the rightmost column of the periodic table, we find the noble gases. The lightest is helium, followed by neon, argon, krypton, and then xenon. Below that is radon, which is unstable. Xenon is the heaviest stable noble gas and is a trace component of our atmosphere, comprising 0.00000000 87% of the atmosphere. If you distill hundreds, or more accurately, millions of liters of air, compress it into a liquid under cryogenic conditions, and then distill off all the different gases—like nitrogen and oxygen—you are 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 you can float a foil boat in it if you pour it into a terrarium. This is all very strange and fascinating!

=> 02:10:47

Xenon, the shy noble gas, isn’t just in every breath you take; it’s also a euphoric anesthetic that could redefine performance enhancement.

Krypton, Xenon, and Radon are notable elements in the periodic table. Radon is unstable, making Xenon the heaviest stable noble gas. Interestingly, Xenon is a trace component of our atmosphere, constituting 0.0000000087% of the air we breathe. If you were to distill hundreds, or more accurately, millions of liters of air and compress it into a liquid under cryogenic conditions, you would eventually distill off all the different gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen, leaving behind a small fraction of this very heavy gas called Xenon.

Xenon is so dense that it can be poured like a liquid, allowing for unique experiments, such as floating a foil boat in it. It also has fascinating effects on the human voice; inhaling helium produces a high-pitched sound, while inhaling Xenon results in a demonic ultra-low voice. Beyond its physical properties, Xenon is recognized as a drug. When inhaled, it produces an amazing euphoric anesthetic effect, which some anesthesiologists consider makes it the perfect drug. Unlike many other drugs that are biotransformed by the body, Xenon is a single atom that remains unchanged; you inhale it and exhale it without alteration.

In Russia, Xenon is reportedly used as a performance-enhancing drug. Athletes are placed in Xenon tents, similar to oxygen deprivation tents, which provide the added euphoric and anesthetic properties of Xenon, purportedly allowing them to work harder. Xenon is one of the shyest members of the periodic table, being chemically almost inert and physically a naturally occurring element. Notably, it is used as an anesthetic in Russia and is known to protect body tissues from low temperatures, lack of oxygen, and physical trauma. It increases the level of erythropoietin (EPO), a hormone that encourages the formation of red blood cells.

This raises an interesting question: if one were to take Xenon, would they test positive for EPO? It has been banned in some places as a performance-enhancing drug. The conversation then shifts to a specific individual who underwent detox in Russia. The speaker notes that this person has openly discussed their medical history, including a year of suffering from withdrawal symptoms. The severity of withdrawal can vary significantly, especially for public figures who already face anxiety-inducing pressures.

The speaker reflects on the difficulties of withdrawal, noting that the severity can depend on various factors, including the length of use and psychological aspects. They draw comparisons between different substances, stating that while heroin withdrawal is often dramatized in popular culture, benzodiazepines, like Xanax, are not treated with the same seriousness. This discrepancy in societal perception leads to a lack of awareness about the challenges of benzodiazepine withdrawal, despite the fact that many people struggle with addiction to these substances.

In conclusion, while both heroin and benzodiazepines can lead to significant withdrawal challenges, the cultural narratives surrounding them differ greatly, affecting public understanding and treatment approaches.

=> 02:14:54

We glamorize the dangers of opioids while downplaying the risks of benzodiazepines, but both deserve serious conversation about their impact on mental health.

The discussion around the difficulties of certain drugs highlights a significant cultural bias. They are difficult is often a phrase used to describe substances like heroin, which we treat as inherently problematic. This perspective is reinforced by films such as Trainspotting, Requiem for a Dream, and Permanent Midnight, which dramatize the horrors of opioid addiction and withdrawal. These narratives have become a part of our cultural diet, teaching us that opioid addiction is something to be avoided at all costs. In contrast, the same is not true of benzodiazepines, which are often perceived as benign.

For instance, rappers talk about Xanax, portraying it in a light that downplays its potential dangers. Xanax is indeed a benzodiazepine, and many individuals struggle with real problems related to its use. While these substances can be harmful, it is essential to recognize that they represent a vast improvement over older drugs. Society has become accustomed to the idea that most of our complaints revolve around things that are too good rather than too bad.

Historically, barbiturates posed significant risks, often leading to accidental deaths among users who were not even trying to misuse them. In comparison, benzodiazepines are comparatively very safe chemicals. Although they are not without danger, they signify a substantial medical advance. This safety is a primary reason why they are so widely prescribed. Physicians prioritize prescribing drugs that do not carry a high risk of accidental death, which is also why SSRIs are widely prescribed; they are known to be very poor at causing fatal overdoses.

The introduction of benzodiazepines, particularly through the work of chemist Leo Sternbach, was considered a huge boon to science. These medications allowed for the treatment of anxiety without the severe risks associated with barbiturates, which were linked to high-profile deaths such as those of Jimi Hendrix and Marilyn Monroe. However, there is insufficient discussion about the problems associated with cessation and withdrawal for long-term users.

To understand how benzodiazepines reduce anxiety, it is essential to look at their mechanism of action. They act as positive allosteric modulators of the GABA-A receptor. In simple terms, neurons transmit signals electrically, and for a neuron to fire, it must reach a certain threshold of charge, which is influenced by ions in the brain. When a benzodiazepine binds to the GABA-A receptor, it promotes the opening of a channel that allows chloride ions—carrying a negative charge—to enter the cell. This influx reduces the neuron's charge, making it less likely to fire, thus alleviating anxiety.

However, when users stop taking Xanax, they often experience what is described as a slingshot effect. Initially, Xanax reduces anxiety, but upon cessation, users may find their baseline anxiety levels actually increase. This phenomenon occurs because the body adapts to the presence of the drug, leading to a compensatory response that can result in a more severe excitatory reaction when the drug is removed. In extreme cases, this can lead to seizures or even death, although such outcomes are rare and typically associated with high doses and long-term use.

To mitigate the negative effects of discontinuing benzodiazepines, a more responsible strategy is to taper the dose gradually. This approach helps avoid severe withdrawal symptoms. In addition to tapering, there are tons of things that individuals can take to ease the transition off these medications, although specific alternatives were not detailed in the discussion.

=> 02:19:01

Breaking free from habits, even the ones you love, can reveal surprising truths about yourself and help you grow.

The discussion begins with the introduction of chloride ions into the cell. When a drug is removed, the body has already made adaptations to its presence, which can lead to a more severe excitatory response. This response can ultimately cause seizures and death in some instances; however, it is important to note that this is not common. Such severe reactions are typically associated with very high doses and long-term use. Even then, these outcomes are not guaranteed, especially with very abrupt cessation of the drug. A more responsible strategy is to taper the dose to avoid these adverse effects as much as possible.

The conversation shifts to whether tapering is the only way to mitigate the negative response of discontinuing the drug. The answer is no; there are many alternatives available. For instance, one could take a muscle relaxant like tamine, which has a different pharmacology, or utilize cannabinoids or other treatments depending on what is most appropriate for the individual. However, it is crucial to emphasize that there is no "Magic Bullet" that will treat everyone effectively. The main focus should be on psychological work to cultivate habits that promote better sleep through exercise and develop better strategies for managing stress.

These two combined approaches can significantly help in preventing future reliance on such substances. The problems associated with drug use primarily emerge from long-term high-dose use. Many individuals can use benzodiazepines occasionally, such as before a flight or during a stressful event, without experiencing negative consequences. The key issue arises when people become accustomed to the anxiety-relieving effects and begin to take the drug more frequently, leading to physical dependence.

It is essential to be familiar with these substances and understand their potential risks. The speaker expresses concern about the habitual use of any drug, even those perceived as innocuous, like cannabis. They recount their personal experience, stating that while they enjoyed cannabis in their 20s, they began experiencing panic attacks upon turning 30, which forced them to stop. Despite initially enjoying cannabis, they realized that it had become a habit that affected their sense of security when traveling. Consequently, they decided to stop using it completely for several years.

This decision proved to be a valuable exercise, as it allowed them to observe how they changed without the substance. They discovered that cannabis was not merely a sleep aid but also a way to mitigate the anger they felt, which is prevalent in society today. The speaker notes that social media platforms like Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, and Instagram often amplify human opinions and rage, creating an environment that is psychologically challenging. They advise people to avoid engaging in such behavior, as it not only consumes their finite time on Earth but also detracts from their ability to engage in positive actions that could enhance their well-being.

Ultimately, the speaker emphasizes that bullying—whether as a victim or perpetrator—is detrimental to everyone involved. The current state of communication, which often lacks social cues and compassion, is troubling. It is crucial for individuals to seek more meaningful interactions and avoid the cycle of negativity that pervades much of modern communication.

=> 02:23:01

Engaging in online negativity not only harms others but also drains your own happiness; real connection happens face-to-face, where empathy thrives and communication flourishes.

Agitated engagement at all times can be very psychologically difficult. I think people need to try to avoid that kind of behavior as much as they possibly can. Not only are you volunteering your finite time on Earth to feed a social media machine and advertisements with your own misery, but you are also preventing yourself from doing anything nice in the world, which will ultimately make you feel better. Forget what effect it has on the subject of the bullying; it's not good to be a bully. It's not good for the bully, and it's not going to make you happy.

It’s far too prevalent that this is the only way people communicate. They communicate all day like that, and it’s devoid of social cues and compassion. You're not looking at someone; you have no empathy. You could say something online, say mean things all day, and it changes the way you communicate. It changes the way you interface with humans. Yes, I think it's real bad. I don't do it anymore; I just post things. I call it post and ghost. I post and I run away; I don't read anything.

If I look at anything, it's on Instagram, and I don't read comments. Sometimes people post interesting things about their lives or cool pictures, and I’ll look at that, but I don't read any of mine. I just don't think it's healthy. I think Facebook is the least healthy of them because people go on these long rants. Then, people below those long rants respond, and they get addicted to it. They're constantly checking it and battling back and forth with people on opinions, issues, politics, religion, and social problems. It's just 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. 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. This makes it much harder to talk over people because you're too aware that you're being rude. You don’t hear anything from the outside world, and we're looking at each other eye to eye, staring at each other across the table. There are no electronics; we're not looking at our phones, and we're not being distracted by anything. To me, it's the best way to sort things out and to figure out how a person really is. You get to know a person for real this way, without the noise that comes from social media interactions, which I think is the worst way to communicate with people.

It’s a shame because I actually love talking to people. Some of the most interesting stories I've ever told and some of the most interesting experiences I've ever had have come from strangers contacting me. We have the internet, which is the greatest educational tool ever devised by humans, and it's being used as a machine for competitively angry remarks. It's just natural; when it's so easy to be angry at someone, it’s so easy when they’re not there and you're not in their presence. It’s a poor way to communicate. You say something in a text, and they say something in a text; it's not good. The best way to communicate is physically being in the same room with a person, looking them in the eyes, and using words. You get a much better sense of what the person is trying to communicate.

Alan Lenovitz calls it processed information, the same way processed food is bad for you. That processed information is bad for you, and so many people are on a processed food diet, which is just terrible for their health. Well, processed information is terrible for your mental health. I think he's dead right, and I think it's an excellent way to describe it. But it is also a cultural thing; it doesn't have to be this way. People could make the internet any way they wanted it to be, and you could hold yourself to a different standard. Sometimes, I see people posting things like, “I don’t have time to look it up,” but I think, “Well, you’re writing this on the greatest information-gathering machine ever devised by man. Why don’t you just look it up then and not post?”

This really is a remarkable time. Do you know about SAUB? Have you ever heard about that? Oh man, I’m glad to be able to talk about this even briefly with you because it’s crazy. You know who Aaron Schwartz was, right? So, you know that when Aaron Schwartz died, what happened? He was trying to collect all the scientific scholarly...

=> 02:26:51

The internet can be a powerful tool for knowledge, yet many choose to scroll mindlessly instead of seeking the truth right at their fingertips.

The internet could be any way that people wanted it to be, and individuals can hold themselves to different standards. Sometimes, I'll see people posting things like, "I don't know; I don't have time to look it up, but I think it's there." It's like, well, you're writing this on the greatest information-gathering machine ever devised by man. Why don't you just take the time to look it up and not post yet?

This really is a remarkable time. Do you know about Sci-Hub? Have you ever heard about that? No? Oh man, I'm glad to be able to talk about this even briefly with you because it's crazy! You know who Aaron Swartz was, right? Yes? So, you know that when Aaron Swartz died, he was trying to collect all the scientific scholarly literature and make it freely available. What's not widely known is that someone else tried to do the same thing, and they succeeded. There is this website called Sci-Hub. The domain suffix changes periodically, and this woman, I believe she's in Kazakhstan, I think her name is Alexandra Elbakyan, successfully created a website that allows you to access every scientific article ever published in the history of mankind.

Wow, in the history of yes! It's significant beyond measure. How long ago did she do this? This has been around for years, and I think people do need to know about it because it's one of the most important achievements. I mean, she should win a Nobel Prize for this; it is truly one of the greatest things that has ever happened to science. When people talk about science, I think they don't really know what science is. Is it the knowledge of living scientists? Is it the opinion of the greatest expert? What is science? But what science really is, is a series of 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.

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, Ethiopia, or wherever; you have access to the full digital resources of Oxford, Harvard, and Yale. It is going to change the world, and it already has changed the world. I guarantee that 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.

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. Yet, people are just spending their entire lives insulting Trump on Twitter or whatever. We have to recognize what an amazing time it is, even though there are, of course, horrible things happening all around us. There are things like that that are so incredibly useful.

Is this in danger at all? Oh, of course, yes, it is. That's why she changes the address. Yes, it is in danger, and I don't even know if it's... you know, I think it's worth talking about publicly because I think more people, even some scientists, may not know about it. But yes, it's in danger because there was money to be made. It's really unfortunate because scientists aren't paid to write scientific articles. If you write a peer-reviewed scientific article, that's something 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. Now, that's not the case anymore. It's huge.

Wow! Has there ever been an effort to do something other than what Aaron Swartz did? Has there been an argument? Aaron Swartz ended up killing himself because he faced a lengthy jail sentence, right? Yes, and it's horrific. People are furious about it to this day that he was prosecuted the way he was. Is there any effort among intellectuals to say that this is wrong and that all these papers should be released and that something like Sci-Hub should be readily available? Oh yeah, everyone that isn't a publisher of scientific literature supports Sci-Hub.

Wow! 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, yes, I'm sure they would throw the book at her if they could. But she...

=> 02:30:57

The fight for open access to scientific knowledge is more than just a debate; it's a movement fueled by the tragic loss of voices like Aaron Swartz, reminding us that knowledge should be free for all.

Anymore, it's huge. Wow! Has there ever been an effort to do something other than Aaron Schwartz? There has been an argument regarding Aaron Schwartz, who tragically ended his life because he faced a lengthy jail sentence. This situation is horrific, and people are furious about it to this day, particularly regarding how he was prosecuted.

Is there any effort amongst intellectuals to say that this is wrong and that all these papers should be released, and that something like SCUB should be readily available? Oh yeah, everybody—everyone that isn't a publisher of scientific literature—supports SCUB. Wow! 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. I'm sure they would throw the book at her if they could. But she succeeded; she really succeeded, and this has been around for years. You know, this is a life-changing, amazing contribution to science. So, there’s definitely some good stuff out there.

To go back to benzodiazepines, I want you to explain the xenon gas and what the psychoactive effect of it is. What does it do to you that would help you get off of benzodiazepines? Why would Jordan Peterson use that as a therapy? Oh, I just heard that was one of many things that he was trying. I think he was really, really seriously struggling and was trying a lot of different things to see what would stick.

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.

Whippets! Yeah, when I was a kid, I worked at Newport Creamery, which was an ice cream place, and we had tanks of nitrous oxide that they used for whipped cream. Oh yeah, the dudes that I worked with would do whippets and get blasted.

The beneficial effects of xenon inhalation on behavioral changes in a valproic acid-induced model of autism in rats are noteworthy. Whoa, whoa! The 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 has beneficial effects on several behavioral modalities and deserves further investigation.

So, yeah, I'm not making any kind of medical claims about xenon being 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 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, 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. 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 think, "Alright, nitrous oxide interferes with B12 metabolism, fine, that's a thing that happens." Then I started thinking, "But wait a second, 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?"

Then I realized that both nitrous oxide and B12 are produced by bacteria, and there are probably ancient bacterial interactions. This has been researched a little bit as well; these might be part of ancient bacterial signaling cascades that you can use nitrous oxide as a sort of bioside to shift a bacterium to a B12-independent metabolic route and compete with other bacteria. The majority of the nitrous oxide in our atmosphere isn't from human activity; it's from bacteria. So, like, all these things are constantly happening around us.

=> 02:34:59

Ancient bacterial interactions shape our modern understanding of drug reactions and addiction recovery.

But wait a second, 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? Then I realized that both nitrous oxide and B12 are produced by bacteria. There’s probably ancient bacterial interactions, and this has been researched a little bit as well. These might be part of ancient bacterial signaling cascades. You can use nitrous oxide as a sort of bioside to shift a bacterium to a B12-independent metabolic route and compete with other bacteria. The majority of the nitrous oxide in our atmosphere isn't from human activity; it's from bacteria.

So, like all these things are constantly happening around us. When we have some kind of weird toxic reaction to a drug, that might be some recapitulation of an ancient interaction that evolved in bacteria. Whoa.

Now, to go back to Jordan Peterson and his withdrawal, because this is fascinating to me, why did he have to go to Russia? I don't understand that. He’s saying that that was the only place where we could do a medical rehabilitation or detoxification. Again, I think that using Jordan Peterson as an example of a typical benzodiazepine-dependent person is probably not the right way to think about it. I don’t know what social factors he was facing as well. 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!” Maybe he just wanted to get away from people that had opinions about his work. Perhaps he felt like he was drowning in an abundance of representation.

Yeah, I mean, if I were him, I would not want to be in LA at a detox center. I would want to get as far away as possible where TMZ could find you.

Is there anything that does what benzodiazepines do but does it in a safer way or a less addictive way? Like anything that alleviates anxiety that doesn't come with this sort of slingshot effect?

Yes, there are. 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. Some people consider them 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.

Now, iboga has some sort of a corrective effect on addiction, right? Yes, is that a good way to describe it? It does for some people. Would that be effective on the withdrawal of benzodiazepines? 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.

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. I felt like I began to understand iboga in a way that I certainly didn’t when I last spoke to you. A big part of those ceremonies, you know, 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, and continuous socializing. 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. They have a sort of recessed area, almost like a dungeon. I hate to call it a dungeon, but it had a dungeon-like character.

In this area, the people who are struggling with addiction all lay side by side. It’s like laying down and withdrawing in the middle of the loudest imaginable party. On one hand, that sounds kind of horrible, but they’re also surrounded by a supportive community that genuinely cares about them. They’re giving them iboga to anesthetize them because iboga is also like ketamine and like xenon and NMDA antagonists at very high doses. It produces a pseudo-anesthetic effect, and even at very high doses, it will prick...

=> 02:39:14

In the depths of struggle, we often discover that everything we need to rise is already within us.

Socializing can be particularly challenging for individuals struggling with an addiction. Suddenly, they find themselves surrounded by people who are watching them all the time. In this context, there exists a sort of recessed area, which I hesitate to call a dungeon, but it does have a dungeon-like character. Here, individuals grappling with addiction lay side by side, experiencing withdrawal amidst the loudest imaginable party. On one hand, this situation sounds quite horrible, yet they are also enveloped by a supportive community that genuinely cares about them.

During this process, they are given iboga to help anesthetize them. Iboga functions similarly to ketamine and xenon, acting as an NMDA antagonist at very high doses, producing a pseudo-anesthetic effect. Even at these high doses, caregivers will prick the individual with a thorn to ensure responsiveness. If there is no response to the prick, they recognize that the individual has had enough, and it's time to allow them to come down a little. Throughout this experience, participants do not consume any food; all the water they drink is iboga tea. Consequently, their bodies are inundated with iboga for five straight days.

This five-day period is characterized by dancing, drum playing, and very little sleep. Interestingly, children, babies, and the elderly all partake in this ceremony. The entire community engages in this remarkable celebration. While I am not making any claims about the safety of this practice, I did meet several individuals who had been participating since infancy and were now college students, appearing completely fine, socially functional, and happy to be there.

What I learned about iboga is that it shares a conceptual similarity with the idea of breatharianism. This is the notion that some people believe they can live solely on air, deriving all necessary nutrients and energy from the ether. Although this idea is widely mocked as pseudoscientific, it prompts a deeper psychological inquiry into why someone would subject themselves to days of fasting and this delusional belief. The empowering notion that everything one needs is within oneself is incredibly appealing, even if it is fundamentally flawed.

In the iboga ceremony, there is a component that strips everything away—participants do not need water, food, or sleep; they simply keep going because everything they need is within them. This experience emphasizes self-reliance and strength, which can be tremendously beneficial for anyone with any form of dependence, not just opioids. It is not solely about a pharmacological class; rather, it is about a substance that imparts a lesson through its cultural context, reinforcing the idea that individuals possess everything they need within themselves.

During these five days, I was curious about the experience. Did it vary at all? Was there ever a moment of sleep? The answer is no; participants do not eat any food for the entire duration. I, however, did partake in some food at the end. I didn't go all the way with the fasting, as I had never really fasted before. Even my limited experience was amazing. It felt akin to getting a second wind while running—initially, I thought, "This is insane, I can't do this, I’m going to die." Yet, as I persevered, I experienced a tremendous exhilaration in realizing that I was not going to die and that I had additional reserves within me.

This ceremonial tapping into one's inner strength allows participants to leave with a sense of empowerment, enabling them to live life free from previous dependencies. As for my own experience, I engaged in low doses every night, culminating in what was probably a medium dose on the final night. It was utterly extraordinary. I would describe it as the most logical experience I have ever had.

=> 02:43:20

True strength comes from embracing suffering, not avoiding it.

The experience of facing one's fears can be transformative. Initially, there is a feeling of despair, as one might think, "I can't do this, I'm gonna die." However, as one continues, there comes a moment of tremendous exhilaration in realizing that "you're not going to die" and that there are additional reserves within you. This realization allows individuals to keep going, and by tapping into that strength ceremonially, people often leave with a sense of empowerment. This newfound strength enables them to live life without the dependencies they previously had.

In discussing the duration of this experience, I shared that I did low doses every night, culminating in a medium dose on the final night, which was utterly extraordinary. The insights gained from this experience were profound. I felt the most logical I have ever felt in my entire life. It was as if I was seeing myself as an outside observer, free from emotional attachments. This perspective allowed me to understand how I had distorted various aspects of my life, recognize frameworks of justifications and delusions, and ultimately forgive myself for my past behaviors. As a result, I made significant changes to my life and feel better because of it.

When exploring why this experience helps people with addictions, it's essential to understand that there is an actual change in the way the brain interfaces with the substances to which individuals are addicted. There are several proposed mechanisms, with the prevailing concept being the interaction with a subtype of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor called the alpha3 beta4 acetylcholine receptor. This receptor acts as an antagonist, similar to some other anti-addictive medications like Wellbutrin.

Additionally, there are hypotheses suggesting that the experience may work through the release of neurotrophic factors such as BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor) and GDNF (glial cell-derived neurotrophic factor). Other theories propose that it may involve the NMDA receptor or exert a classical serotonergic effect via the 5-HT2A receptor. Furthermore, its metabolite, nor-ibogaine, may have an opioid effect that alleviates withdrawal symptoms. The pharmacology is complex, as it binds to a wide variety of receptors, making it challenging to pinpoint a single effect.

This complexity is also observed with other substances like kava, where the mechanisms are still debated. However, what I learned from the ceremony is that the focus should not solely be on opioids; rather, it’s about the compulsions that nearly every person experiences. Society often creates artificial boundaries around what constitutes a drug. For instance, oxycodone is labeled a drug, while Instagram, air conditioning, compulsive sex, and gambling are not, despite likely operating on similar neurological circuits. All these behaviors are compulsions aimed at reducing suffering and increasing comfort.

To live a healthy life, we must develop a mature attitude toward suffering and find benefit in it. Interestingly, many ceremonies incorporate Christian iconography, despite their origins in Central West Africa. Initially, I questioned why such imagery was included, but I realized that for many cultures, the image of Christ symbolizes divinity in suffering. This representation conveys that there is strength in suffering, and through suffering, one can gain wisdom and growth.

As we concluded our discussion, I expressed my appreciation for the insights shared. "You really need to keep doing this," I encouraged, recognizing the value of his perspective. He mentioned his ongoing projects, including a podcast and a book, and I expressed my desire to continue these conversations. "I love talking to you," he said, and I echoed that sentiment, looking forward to future discussions.

In closing, I thanked him for his time, and we bid farewell, leaving the conversation with a sense of hope and understanding.