What do you think?
Rate this book
Drugs Without the Hot Air: Minimizing the Harms of Legal and Illegal Drugs
From health to family to society, this informative exploration takes an evidence-based view of all the factors involved in drug use. Applying the same objective criteria to legal and illegal substances, an argument is made that legality is not a clear measure for harm. Tackling a variety of questions, such as Which is more harmful—Ecstasy or alcohol? Can addiction be cured? and Does the "War on Drugs" have serious unintended effects that can hurt children?, this analysis equips readers with the ability to make educated decisions regarding drugs both personally and in their communities. Broadening the scope of the discussion, a framework is explored for formulating national drug policies that will minimize a myriad of harms—social, medical, criminal, financial, and environmental.
320 pages, Paperback
First published May 31, 2012
271 people are currently reading
6612 people want to read
About the author
David J. Nutt
44 books82 followersDavid John Nutt is an English neuropsychopharmacologist specialising in the research of drugs that affect the brain and conditions such as addiction, anxiety, and sleep. He is the chairman of Drug Science, a non-profit which he founded in 2010 to provide independent, evidence-based information on drugs.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 160 reviews
August 13, 2012
David Nutt became somewhat famous in the UK when he was chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs [ACMD], the statutory body which is responsible for advising the government on drug policy, and specifically on the appropriate legal classification of different drugs.
He was criticised and eventually fired for being rather too vocal about the fact that the government consistently ignored the advice of the ACMD and allowed political considerations to trump the evidence, and for pointing out some inconvenient truths about relative harms; that alcohol and tobacco are both more dangerous than many illegal drugs, and that horse-riding is considerably more dangerous than taking ecstasy.
This became a bit of a cause celèbre in the geekosphere. Because we all know that politicians will ignore the evidence if it’s politically inconvenient, but it’s rarely quite so blatant as firing someone for saying what the evidence is.
This book covers various aspects of drug use: how drugs work, how harmful they are, what addiction is, what treatments are available and so on. It covers alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs as well as the illegal ones.
It’s interesting to read because it simultaneously seems radical and rather obvious. Radical because if all the evidence in the book was taken seriously it would involve a top-to-bottom rewriting of UK drug laws; and obvious because actually not much of this stuff should come as a surprise.
For example, however much politicians may splutter about the comparison, can anyone who lives in this country seriously doubt that alcohol causes far more social harm than ecstasy or cannabis? Or that, purely pragmatically, treating addiction as a medical problem is likely to be more successful than treating it as a moral failing? And even if you think cannabis should be illegal, surely it makes intuitive sense that it is counterproductive to imprison users: both because being in prison is in itself more damaging to the individual’s future prospects than the actual drug use, and because it is very expensive to lock people up.
It’s interesting though, and very readable. It helps that, although the book takes a ‘liberal’ stance compared to the current law, it’s not derived from a naive libertarianism. Nutt is not arguing for loosening the drug laws on the basis of increased personal liberty; he wants the law to be better at managing harms and risks. So he supports the ban on smoking in public places and would tighten some of the rules on alcohol sales. And although treating addiction to heroin and cocaine as a primarily medical problem could be seen as ‘soft on drugs’, he’s arguing for it on the basis that it is the best way to minimise harm.
A few random interesting points from the book: he points out that coca leaves, cocaine and crack are all pharmacologically the same substance, and that the method of delivery makes a huge difference not just to the experience but also the addictiveness. I was startled to learn that about 500 people a year die of heroin overdoses after coming out of prison because, having stopped or reduced their use while inside, they have lost the tolerance they used to have.
And I was struck by his suggestion that the duty on alcoholic drinks should be proportional to actual alcohol content, rather than by category with one rate for beer and one for wine and so on. That would be a direct incentive for drinkers to switch to weaker drinks and for manufacturers to reverse the trend of beers and wines getting stronger. Which seems sensible. There is a general argument for making alcohol more expensive anyway, but it seems like a good start to make Special Brew considerably more expensive than lagers with less than half the alcohol.
He was criticised and eventually fired for being rather too vocal about the fact that the government consistently ignored the advice of the ACMD and allowed political considerations to trump the evidence, and for pointing out some inconvenient truths about relative harms; that alcohol and tobacco are both more dangerous than many illegal drugs, and that horse-riding is considerably more dangerous than taking ecstasy.
This became a bit of a cause celèbre in the geekosphere. Because we all know that politicians will ignore the evidence if it’s politically inconvenient, but it’s rarely quite so blatant as firing someone for saying what the evidence is.
This book covers various aspects of drug use: how drugs work, how harmful they are, what addiction is, what treatments are available and so on. It covers alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs as well as the illegal ones.
It’s interesting to read because it simultaneously seems radical and rather obvious. Radical because if all the evidence in the book was taken seriously it would involve a top-to-bottom rewriting of UK drug laws; and obvious because actually not much of this stuff should come as a surprise.
For example, however much politicians may splutter about the comparison, can anyone who lives in this country seriously doubt that alcohol causes far more social harm than ecstasy or cannabis? Or that, purely pragmatically, treating addiction as a medical problem is likely to be more successful than treating it as a moral failing? And even if you think cannabis should be illegal, surely it makes intuitive sense that it is counterproductive to imprison users: both because being in prison is in itself more damaging to the individual’s future prospects than the actual drug use, and because it is very expensive to lock people up.
It’s interesting though, and very readable. It helps that, although the book takes a ‘liberal’ stance compared to the current law, it’s not derived from a naive libertarianism. Nutt is not arguing for loosening the drug laws on the basis of increased personal liberty; he wants the law to be better at managing harms and risks. So he supports the ban on smoking in public places and would tighten some of the rules on alcohol sales. And although treating addiction to heroin and cocaine as a primarily medical problem could be seen as ‘soft on drugs’, he’s arguing for it on the basis that it is the best way to minimise harm.
A few random interesting points from the book: he points out that coca leaves, cocaine and crack are all pharmacologically the same substance, and that the method of delivery makes a huge difference not just to the experience but also the addictiveness. I was startled to learn that about 500 people a year die of heroin overdoses after coming out of prison because, having stopped or reduced their use while inside, they have lost the tolerance they used to have.
And I was struck by his suggestion that the duty on alcoholic drinks should be proportional to actual alcohol content, rather than by category with one rate for beer and one for wine and so on. That would be a direct incentive for drinkers to switch to weaker drinks and for manufacturers to reverse the trend of beers and wines getting stronger. Which seems sensible. There is a general argument for making alcohol more expensive anyway, but it seems like a good start to make Special Brew considerably more expensive than lagers with less than half the alcohol.
October 16, 2012
Guess I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
January 8, 2018
Last week I was on a train with two guys sitting just behind me steadily getting drunk on beer and talking loudly. For the most part I blocked them out with headphones as I was reading, but what I caught of their chat was pretty entertaining. In an entirely serious tone, one guy explained that Nikola Tesla invented a machine to control the weather, which the US government stole and NASA now has. (Presumably NASA lost the manual, hence climate change.) Then they got onto the subject of cannabis and spouted what I assumed were nonsensical conspiracy theories. Having read ‘Drugs Without the Hot Air’, I now realise that I owe those two drunk guys a (partial) apology! According to Nutt, there really is a cannabis-specific element of brain chemistry and hemp cultivation really was banned in the US due to pressure from a paper magnate. However, I still doubt that cannabis cures cancer, which the train pals also claimed. The points of this anecdote are a) I learned a lot from this sensible, clearly written book, b) if you must get drunk on public transport, you should at least amuse your fellow passengers as well as annoying them.
I came across ‘Drugs Without the Hot Air’ while browsing in the library and remembered Nutt being fired by a previous government for proposing evidence-based drug policies. Here, he explains how they could work, as well as describing the known effects of various popular legal and illegal drugs. The historical elements are inevitably of especial piquancy - did you know that the Pope Leo XIII endorsed cocaine-infused wine? Apparently it was pretty lethal stuff. Nutt resolutely counters sensationalism by breaking down the physical, mental, and social consequences of using various drugs and discussing whether there is such a thing as an ‘addictive personality’. The inclusion of copious academic references at the end of each chapter provides reassurance that it’s all backed up by science.
Personally, I find reading about drugs very interesting (notably The Doors of Perception & Heaven and Hell) but am far too much of a control freak to actually take them. I include alcohol and tobacco in this; Nutt certainly makes a powerful case against both of them, which I appreciated. The only drug I use is coffee and my ridiculous hypersensitivity to caffeine suggests that any stronger stimulant would kill me immediately. One cup of double-shot coffee will keep me awake, alert, and wired for at least 18 hours, even after inadequate sleep, whether I like it or not. While this can be useful on occasion, I mostly keep to decaf and instant. Coffee is not merely an accepted drug, though, it has a weird totemic significance to late capitalism. Favoured type of coffee is treated like a signifier of identity and widely used as a metaphor for personal choice and autonomy. Coffee is a tasty stimulant beverage, but doesn’t really deserve its cultural significance. Similarly, illegal drugs drugs don’t all deserve the aura of danger that media depictions surround them with. Nutt presents a comprehensive account of the damage that this causes, at individual, community, national, and international levels. His thesis is that, since people are going to take drugs, they should know the facts in order to keep themselves as safe as possible. A refreshingly sensible perspective, entirely lacking moral judgement. As well as being informative, 'Drugs Without the Hot Air' is an extremely well-structured and readable book. I greatly enjoyed it.
I came across ‘Drugs Without the Hot Air’ while browsing in the library and remembered Nutt being fired by a previous government for proposing evidence-based drug policies. Here, he explains how they could work, as well as describing the known effects of various popular legal and illegal drugs. The historical elements are inevitably of especial piquancy - did you know that the Pope Leo XIII endorsed cocaine-infused wine? Apparently it was pretty lethal stuff. Nutt resolutely counters sensationalism by breaking down the physical, mental, and social consequences of using various drugs and discussing whether there is such a thing as an ‘addictive personality’. The inclusion of copious academic references at the end of each chapter provides reassurance that it’s all backed up by science.
Personally, I find reading about drugs very interesting (notably The Doors of Perception & Heaven and Hell) but am far too much of a control freak to actually take them. I include alcohol and tobacco in this; Nutt certainly makes a powerful case against both of them, which I appreciated. The only drug I use is coffee and my ridiculous hypersensitivity to caffeine suggests that any stronger stimulant would kill me immediately. One cup of double-shot coffee will keep me awake, alert, and wired for at least 18 hours, even after inadequate sleep, whether I like it or not. While this can be useful on occasion, I mostly keep to decaf and instant. Coffee is not merely an accepted drug, though, it has a weird totemic significance to late capitalism. Favoured type of coffee is treated like a signifier of identity and widely used as a metaphor for personal choice and autonomy. Coffee is a tasty stimulant beverage, but doesn’t really deserve its cultural significance. Similarly, illegal drugs drugs don’t all deserve the aura of danger that media depictions surround them with. Nutt presents a comprehensive account of the damage that this causes, at individual, community, national, and international levels. His thesis is that, since people are going to take drugs, they should know the facts in order to keep themselves as safe as possible. A refreshingly sensible perspective, entirely lacking moral judgement. As well as being informative, 'Drugs Without the Hot Air' is an extremely well-structured and readable book. I greatly enjoyed it.
December 13, 2015
Having enjoyed a Hay-Festival talk involving David Nutt among others, which discussed the current attitude towards drugs, and whether the "War on Drugs" had failed, I immediately bought and read this book. In that one hour's discussion, I'd found that my attitude towards drug laws had changed significantly from supporting the current emphasis of strong prosecution and imprisonment, to the recognition that if drug abuse was thought of as purely a health issue, the world could be a much better place. Reading this book helped me understand these concepts further, and taught me a great deal I hadn't known about drugs and the consequences of our approach to their use.
As well as explaining the history, benefits and negatives to a variety of drugs, this book spends most of its time evaluating our attitude towards them, in particular our inability to recognise that legal drugs like cigarettes and alcohol are among the most harmful, and questioning the government's approach in tackling these problems. Nutt's main argument, throughout the book, is related to the minimisation of "harm"; a subtle difference to the minimisation of drug use itself, since, while he doesn't necessarily advocate universal legalisation, there are many arguments showing that banning substances causes more harm than good.
One thing which shines through strongly is Nutt's own personal view. While claiming not to present a black and white issue on drugs, I felt his own opinions were emphasised throughout the book so you certainly couldn't call it unbiased. That said, given his clear expertise, and the fact that the book is grounded in scientific fact, rather than "moral outrage" and media campaigns, I can think of worse people to be influenced by!
My only real negative is that the book does get somewhat repetitive near the end. While I'd still recommend reading the whole thing through, it does feel a bit like each chapter is it's own separate essay; i.e. if a point has been made in one chapter, it will still be made again, two chapters later.
Overall I found this a very informative book, which I'd certainly recommend to other readers.
As well as explaining the history, benefits and negatives to a variety of drugs, this book spends most of its time evaluating our attitude towards them, in particular our inability to recognise that legal drugs like cigarettes and alcohol are among the most harmful, and questioning the government's approach in tackling these problems. Nutt's main argument, throughout the book, is related to the minimisation of "harm"; a subtle difference to the minimisation of drug use itself, since, while he doesn't necessarily advocate universal legalisation, there are many arguments showing that banning substances causes more harm than good.
One thing which shines through strongly is Nutt's own personal view. While claiming not to present a black and white issue on drugs, I felt his own opinions were emphasised throughout the book so you certainly couldn't call it unbiased. That said, given his clear expertise, and the fact that the book is grounded in scientific fact, rather than "moral outrage" and media campaigns, I can think of worse people to be influenced by!
My only real negative is that the book does get somewhat repetitive near the end. While I'd still recommend reading the whole thing through, it does feel a bit like each chapter is it's own separate essay; i.e. if a point has been made in one chapter, it will still be made again, two chapters later.
Overall I found this a very informative book, which I'd certainly recommend to other readers.
January 23, 2024
Super interessant. Veel bijgeleerd, ik raad het iedereen aan.
September 8, 2013
Several months ago I gave this book 4 stars. Since then, I've thought about it so many times and recommended it to so many people that I decided it must merit 5 stars.
The guy expatiates on all my favorite hobbyhorses--but, obviously, in a much more intelligent and insightful way than I ever do when I'm the one riding them. Since I'm not a biochemist, medical professional, or social worker, I can't really analyze his arguments, but they all seem intellectually responsible and on point. My only complaint is that the book (at least the edition I read) isn't very well edited.
The guy expatiates on all my favorite hobbyhorses--but, obviously, in a much more intelligent and insightful way than I ever do when I'm the one riding them. Since I'm not a biochemist, medical professional, or social worker, I can't really analyze his arguments, but they all seem intellectually responsible and on point. My only complaint is that the book (at least the edition I read) isn't very well edited.
November 24, 2013
Pretty much what the title says. An actual expert scientific investigation of alcohol/drugs and drug policy without a bunch of misleading morality-based bullshit. This is from the guy whose thoughtful and fairly comprehensive analysis produced a list of the top 20 harmful drugs:
October 3, 2014
Completely rethought my view on drugs reading this book. Every claim is backed up by research, every point is well made, and the book flows like a dream.
If you value truth in what you know, then this book is a massive step in the right direction, but be warned, your assumptions about drugs will be challenged.
If you value truth in what you know, then this book is a massive step in the right direction, but be warned, your assumptions about drugs will be challenged.
July 14, 2020
This was first published in 2012 and has been on my “to read” list ever since. I think, but can’t be certain, that I’ve sat through a tall by the author at some point in that period—though it may have been someone talking about him!
Professor Nutt is best known for having been sacked as chair of the Government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in 2009. In a lecture, he made an evidence-based comparison between the risks of taking ecstasy and the risks of horse-riding. The fact of the comparison was unpalatable to the Government of the time, and he was removed from his post.
Nutt goes into some detail at the start of this book about his disagreements with Government. Unfortunately, given that it’s at the start of the book, I found this a bit unconvincing: it read as though he felt scientific evidence was the only aspect to be considered in policy-making (or at least in the operation of specific policy levers).
However, the bulk of the book is a clear, coherent and evidence-based discussion of the benefits and risks of recreational drug use. This includes a section of parental advice on how to discuss drugs with children. Nutt writes with some humour and wit, and the book is easy to read. I learned quite a bit from it!
Professor Nutt is best known for having been sacked as chair of the Government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in 2009. In a lecture, he made an evidence-based comparison between the risks of taking ecstasy and the risks of horse-riding. The fact of the comparison was unpalatable to the Government of the time, and he was removed from his post.
Nutt goes into some detail at the start of this book about his disagreements with Government. Unfortunately, given that it’s at the start of the book, I found this a bit unconvincing: it read as though he felt scientific evidence was the only aspect to be considered in policy-making (or at least in the operation of specific policy levers).
However, the bulk of the book is a clear, coherent and evidence-based discussion of the benefits and risks of recreational drug use. This includes a section of parental advice on how to discuss drugs with children. Nutt writes with some humour and wit, and the book is easy to read. I learned quite a bit from it!
March 2, 2025
bardzo dobra z kilku względów. będąc książką popularno- naukową z jednej strony zawiera zgrabne, zrozumiałe wyjaśnienia naprawdę podstaw dla osób, które w temacie jakoś bardzo nie siedzą, a z mojej perspektywy ma też dużo do zaoferowania dla osób już na jakimś poziomie zainteresowania (badania, historia, odkrycia).
autor poza charakteryzacją wybranych środków psychoaktywnych wskazuje na ich polityczne znaczenie i przyszłość, której sam nie może być pewny, więc w zasadzie rozważa scenariusze nt. tego jak ta relacja państwo- narkotyki może się układać. z początku bałam się stronniczości autora, ale wydaję mi się, że koniec końców książka pomaga wyrobić sobie własne zdanie i nastawienie do używania/ polityki wobec śp..
uniwersalnie to po prostu bardzo praktyczna książka w świecie gdzie tych substancji jest i będzie co raz więcej. bardzo doceniam też ostatni, dodany rozdział, o tym jak powinno się rozmawiać z młodzieżą o środkach psychoaktywnych, który powinien przeczytać każdy przyszły rodzic, nauczyciel itp itd..
autor poza charakteryzacją wybranych środków psychoaktywnych wskazuje na ich polityczne znaczenie i przyszłość, której sam nie może być pewny, więc w zasadzie rozważa scenariusze nt. tego jak ta relacja państwo- narkotyki może się układać. z początku bałam się stronniczości autora, ale wydaję mi się, że koniec końców książka pomaga wyrobić sobie własne zdanie i nastawienie do używania/ polityki wobec śp..
uniwersalnie to po prostu bardzo praktyczna książka w świecie gdzie tych substancji jest i będzie co raz więcej. bardzo doceniam też ostatni, dodany rozdział, o tym jak powinno się rozmawiać z młodzieżą o środkach psychoaktywnych, który powinien przeczytać każdy przyszły rodzic, nauczyciel itp itd..
January 24, 2023
Pierwsza przeczytana książka w tym roku i to jaka! Sięgnęłam po nią, bo bardzo jej potrzebowałam do pracy magisterskiej, ale w ogóle nie żałuję. Dla pogłębienia własnej wiedzy jest równie przydatna i warta przeczytania. Ogrom informacji, ciekawostek, badań i pokaźna bibliografia. Ciekawe punkty widzenia w połączeniu z nowoczesnym podejściem do substancji psychoaktywnych. Z pewnością będę wracać do niektórych rozdziałów.
June 1, 2023
Eminently sensible, science based overview of the main recreational drugs - legal and illegal - with exhaustive discussion of the benefits and harms of each. Stinging critique of the prohibitionist approach taken over the last century, which has been singularly unsuccessful in reducing harms to drug users and society in general. Favours an approach based on legalisation, strong state regulation, and of course education.
March 4, 2021
Everything you think you know about drugs is (largely) wrong. The War on Drugs has failed unilaterally, and Nutt argues that we should place facts, science, and reality above the emotional knee-jerk reaction that led to prohibition in the first place. Essential reading.
May 8, 2025
mniam
May 30, 2025
Did not expect to enjoy this so much, maybe addictions psych is for me? Really interesting learning about the conflicting nature of politics and science when it comes to drug policies. Particularly how “The War of Drugs” was intrinsically linked to the use of stimulants in the American army and political activism. Is also sad to hear how medical research into treatments for chronic pain and psychiatry has been hindered by policies lacking any scientific evidence😖
February 4, 2026
mega ciekawe, jakbym miała papierową wersję to by była pełna znaczników
December 11, 2017
If you want a scientific and unbiased opinion on drugs and drug policy read this book. Actually since drugs impact all our lives in one way or the other I'd highly recommend reading this book. David Nutt breaks down the hypocrisy, the science, the actual health consequences and the political mess that surrounds drug policy in the UK, and wider world. I have a degree in public health so have decent knowledge on drug policy and learned loads from this book. To be fair it is written a bit like a textbook, but the information is worth the lack of storytelling. If you need some facts to back up that discussion with your kid about drugs . . or better yet your political friends who like to argue about it read this book and wow them with your sensible logic. And yes, alcohol statistically does more damage to society (and has a higher financial burden to health care systems!) than illegal drugs.
Want to read
June 21, 2012Learned about the book through this review: http://boingboing.net/2012/06/20/drug...
Nutt '...recount(s) a call he had with then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who was furious that he'd compared horseback riding harms to the harms from taking MDMA. Smith says that "you can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal activity." When Nutt asks why not, she says, "because one is illegal." When he asks why it is illegal, she says, "Because it is harmful." So he asks, "Don't we need to compare harms to determine if it should be illegal?" And Smith reiterates, "you can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal activity." '
Nutt '...recount(s) a call he had with then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who was furious that he'd compared horseback riding harms to the harms from taking MDMA. Smith says that "you can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal activity." When Nutt asks why not, she says, "because one is illegal." When he asks why it is illegal, she says, "Because it is harmful." So he asks, "Don't we need to compare harms to determine if it should be illegal?" And Smith reiterates, "you can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal activity." '
May 25, 2021
Whilst talking about this book won't make me any fun at parties, it sure will inform my choices for the better.
Full, comprehensive and straight-to-the-point description of what the data tells us about drugs. Very refreshing to read about the true effects (both positive and negative) of different substances without being skewed by politics or taboo - or by an overly enthusiastic drug-taker for that matter!
Full, comprehensive and straight-to-the-point description of what the data tells us about drugs. Very refreshing to read about the true effects (both positive and negative) of different substances without being skewed by politics or taboo - or by an overly enthusiastic drug-taker for that matter!
April 1, 2017
This book is far too sensible an approach to drugs for any politician outside of a Scandinavian country to pay attention to. If we followed Nutt's vision we might actually take care of people and reduce harm rather than use the "war on drugs" to fight proxy wars and put minorities in jail. Really interesting to find out what drugs are pretty much totally safe and which are extremely dangerous.
April 15, 2018
Yep, it's a textbook for my course but one of the best textbooks ever! I'll totally recommend it to everyone, students, and non-students alike. You will get a glimpse into the scientific, social and political factors surrounding DRUGS.
November 21, 2024
Now, for something completely different for me (although there is still a bit of history in here). In this absolutely landmark book, Professor David Nutt outlines the hypocrisies of international drug policy from his standpoint as both a former government advisor and pharmacologist.
His main argument is for a paradigm shift in the way most governments view the policy on drugs (both legal and illegal ones), changing from an often punitive moral issue to one of public health. Why is it that cannabis, a recreational drug, could land you with a years' long prison sentence, while alcohol and tobacco are freely sold in supermarkets despite both having greater harms?
The answer seems to be a mixture of the fear of the unknown, misunderstandings, and the actions of a few zealous anti-drug administrators in the 20th century.
This is a highly informative book and feels like an absolute must for anyone who legislates or who has an opinion on drug policy. Nutt goes through the various histories of different kinds of drugs (tobacco and alcohol included), explanations for how drugs work, why people choose to take drugs, and the crippling effects of addiction -- which can be wholly outside the addict's control. He convincingly argues that many current measures lead not only to stronger drugs, but also more deaths.
He's just the kind of man you would want advising the government on drugs, and indeed advised the UK government until 2009, where rational policy came to blows with political point scoring.
You can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one. - Jacqui Smith, the UK Home Secretary, 2007-2009.
So, was the stance taken by the last Labour government (and by all successive Conservative and Labour governments). Should activities not be banned based on their respective harms, rather than whether they are already illegal? Should people get a criminal record for it? The worst part of blanket bans is that drugs which have potential medical uses have been ignored for decades because they were made illegal, and only recently are scientists being allowed to run some trials.
If you can't tell already, this book is truly galvanising and mind-changing (not that my mind needed to be changed, especially after reading Chasing the Scream a few years ago). It's been on my radar for some time, so long that a new version of the book came out before I read it. The second edition (published in 2020) is the version I read, and it is a mixed picture of whether attitudes and policies have improved or gotten worse.
The issue seems to rarely get a look-in these days in the UK, although Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in 2024 has argued for evidence-based policy. (Not that he was anywhere close to power when making the statement).
If you needed any further convincing, the War on Drugs is fundamentally racist. Here's a quote to finish, from a former aide to US President Richard Nixon, who launched the War on Drugs in earnest in the 1970s.
"We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the [Vietnam] war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could... arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." - John Erlichman, adviser to US President Richard Nixon.
His main argument is for a paradigm shift in the way most governments view the policy on drugs (both legal and illegal ones), changing from an often punitive moral issue to one of public health. Why is it that cannabis, a recreational drug, could land you with a years' long prison sentence, while alcohol and tobacco are freely sold in supermarkets despite both having greater harms?
The answer seems to be a mixture of the fear of the unknown, misunderstandings, and the actions of a few zealous anti-drug administrators in the 20th century.
This is a highly informative book and feels like an absolute must for anyone who legislates or who has an opinion on drug policy. Nutt goes through the various histories of different kinds of drugs (tobacco and alcohol included), explanations for how drugs work, why people choose to take drugs, and the crippling effects of addiction -- which can be wholly outside the addict's control. He convincingly argues that many current measures lead not only to stronger drugs, but also more deaths.
He's just the kind of man you would want advising the government on drugs, and indeed advised the UK government until 2009, where rational policy came to blows with political point scoring.
You can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one. - Jacqui Smith, the UK Home Secretary, 2007-2009.
So, was the stance taken by the last Labour government (and by all successive Conservative and Labour governments). Should activities not be banned based on their respective harms, rather than whether they are already illegal? Should people get a criminal record for it? The worst part of blanket bans is that drugs which have potential medical uses have been ignored for decades because they were made illegal, and only recently are scientists being allowed to run some trials.
If you can't tell already, this book is truly galvanising and mind-changing (not that my mind needed to be changed, especially after reading Chasing the Scream a few years ago). It's been on my radar for some time, so long that a new version of the book came out before I read it. The second edition (published in 2020) is the version I read, and it is a mixed picture of whether attitudes and policies have improved or gotten worse.
The issue seems to rarely get a look-in these days in the UK, although Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in 2024 has argued for evidence-based policy. (Not that he was anywhere close to power when making the statement).
If you needed any further convincing, the War on Drugs is fundamentally racist. Here's a quote to finish, from a former aide to US President Richard Nixon, who launched the War on Drugs in earnest in the 1970s.
"We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the [Vietnam] war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could... arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." - John Erlichman, adviser to US President Richard Nixon.
July 28, 2023
Książka promuje racjonalne podejście do narkotyków, przedstawia fakty i prawdziwe zagrożenia, pokazuje, że narkotyki są silnym narzędziem politycznym. Podobało mi się proponowanie różnych strategii co do polityki narkotykowej, które były rzetelnie omawiane przez grupę ekspertów z różnych dziedzin. Książka jest obszerna i można się wiele z niej dowiedzieć, nawet jeśli ktoś siedzi w tym temacie. Polecam każdemu, ponieważ większość społeczeństwa używa lub zna osoby, które używają legalnych substancji psychoaktywnych takich jak alkohol czy nikotyna.
January 25, 2025
If there's one thing I took away from this book, it's that political agendas frequently overrule data when it comes to drug legislation. There are simply too many examples of hysteria and public opinion driving decisions about drug policy, almost always at the expense of causing greater harm to the public. This is a great read for anyone looking to become more informed about drugs, for whatever reason.
April 26, 2022
A super interesting read. I heard about this book in a Psychedelic Medicine course I took this year at uni all about the applications of psychedelic medicine in treating mental health problems and it is definitely one of the best modules I have taken. I am really happy I decided to pick this up after the course ended, I feel like I learned a lot and I never found the content too difficult to understand.
Plus, while David Nutt clearly has his own opinions present in this book, I think he wrote a fairly good representation of the facts as well (this based on my own general knowledge and what I have learned at uni). And this was especially interesting given David Nutt’s past relationship with the British government, and how a lot of the examples and policies mentioned are from the UK, most of which I didn't know much about before, so it was great to be able to put things into context, being British.
Plus, while David Nutt clearly has his own opinions present in this book, I think he wrote a fairly good representation of the facts as well (this based on my own general knowledge and what I have learned at uni). And this was especially interesting given David Nutt’s past relationship with the British government, and how a lot of the examples and policies mentioned are from the UK, most of which I didn't know much about before, so it was great to be able to put things into context, being British.
February 10, 2020
I've made 54 highlights while reading this book. Strongly recommend to read!
November 9, 2022
Couldn't have asked for better introduction to drugs and drug policy. I changed my mind about the addictiveness of cannibis and the toxicity of alcohol. The idea of a license or a venue for psychedelics seems ideal.
June 8, 2017
The best 'textbook' I've ever read. Truly enjoyed.
August 28, 2023
One of my favourite books ever - David Nutt my hero
10/10 recommend
10/10 recommend
December 30, 2021
I knew I would love “Drugs Without The Hot Air” as soon as I read the first few pages. I live in a restrictive third-world country, so the concept of a book that portrays drugs objectively instantly caught my eye.
David J. Nutt explains drugs and drug policies without the ubiquitous “morality-based” arguments. He lists the risks, harms, and advantages of recreational drug use; and ranks legal and illegal drugs considering a series of relevant factors. The findings described throughout the book perfectly demonstrate how the media has corrupted the general public’s perspective on drugs.
While Nutt’s ideas on drugs seem insane and beyond progressive at first, they are logical and proven effective after the evidence is presented. A world in which his policies are implemented would be ideal, because he focuses on minimizing harm and helping addicts recover.
In conclusion, “Drugs Without The Hot Air” should be a required read.
David J. Nutt explains drugs and drug policies without the ubiquitous “morality-based” arguments. He lists the risks, harms, and advantages of recreational drug use; and ranks legal and illegal drugs considering a series of relevant factors. The findings described throughout the book perfectly demonstrate how the media has corrupted the general public’s perspective on drugs.
While Nutt’s ideas on drugs seem insane and beyond progressive at first, they are logical and proven effective after the evidence is presented. A world in which his policies are implemented would be ideal, because he focuses on minimizing harm and helping addicts recover.
In conclusion, “Drugs Without The Hot Air” should be a required read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 160 reviews