What do you think?
Rate this book
Addiction: A Disorder of Choice
In a book sure to inspire controversy, Gene Heyman argues that conventional wisdom about addiction - that it is a disease, a compulsion beyond conscious control - is wrong. At the heart of Heyman's analysis is a startling view of choice and motivation that applies to all choices, not just the choice to use drugs. Heyman’s analysis of well-established but frequently ignored research leads to unexpected insights into how we make choices - from obesity to McMansionization - all rooted in our deep-seated tendency to consume too much of whatever we like best.
216 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 15, 2009
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
July 6, 2012
The study of addiction is complicated by a number of problems. Like sociology, it tends to be dominated by people with strong personal or political positions that ultimately prevent it from being as objective as it should be. For instance, it is not uncommon for addicts to go straight from recovery to working in rehab clinics or doing social work. While this is great for them, it inherently alters the lens with which they look at the subject, making many reluctant to accept findings from outside their own experience.
This book is important to read because it goes an entirely different route. Starting with census data, Heyman looked at people who fit the diagnosis of addiction and tracked what happened to each addiction as the person aged. What he found was shocking. Without treatment, the majority of all "addicts" quit by the time they turn 40. As part of these findings, he noticed that drug abuse responds to economic and personal incentives. Having responsibilities, getting pregnant, the threat of being fired: these were extremely effective motivators in driving people to immediately cease drug use. The author's point is obvious: How can addiction be a chronic brain disease if most people kick it without the help of medicine or programs? More importantly, we know nothing about these people because no one studies them. Instead, our knowledge of addiction is limited to people who are in treatment, likely a heavily distorted representation of the population.
Tyler Cowen's criticism of this book is that Heyman often overstates his claims, and he's right. The book is written in the style of a self-justifying academic paper and this is probably the reason you haven't heard of it. It's the second book I've read on addiction (the other being The End of My Addiction) where the author's attitude hurt the impact of what should have otherwise been a landmark book. That being said, it's important to read books that are critical of the status quo in a given field. It's an easy way to play devil's advocate in conversation and sound more educated on a topic than you might actually be.
This book is important to read because it goes an entirely different route. Starting with census data, Heyman looked at people who fit the diagnosis of addiction and tracked what happened to each addiction as the person aged. What he found was shocking. Without treatment, the majority of all "addicts" quit by the time they turn 40. As part of these findings, he noticed that drug abuse responds to economic and personal incentives. Having responsibilities, getting pregnant, the threat of being fired: these were extremely effective motivators in driving people to immediately cease drug use. The author's point is obvious: How can addiction be a chronic brain disease if most people kick it without the help of medicine or programs? More importantly, we know nothing about these people because no one studies them. Instead, our knowledge of addiction is limited to people who are in treatment, likely a heavily distorted representation of the population.
Tyler Cowen's criticism of this book is that Heyman often overstates his claims, and he's right. The book is written in the style of a self-justifying academic paper and this is probably the reason you haven't heard of it. It's the second book I've read on addiction (the other being The End of My Addiction) where the author's attitude hurt the impact of what should have otherwise been a landmark book. That being said, it's important to read books that are critical of the status quo in a given field. It's an easy way to play devil's advocate in conversation and sound more educated on a topic than you might actually be.
February 20, 2011
"We typically do not advocate incarceration and medical care for the same activities," Heyman observes (p. 1), yet this contradiction is manifest in the very existence of the U.S. Dept. of Justice's Drug Enforcement Agency alongside the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse. He traces this ambivalence in the United States back to the early twentieth-century trends of opium eating, which was popular amongst the upper economic classes and was treated by doctors, and opium smoking, which was popular amongst the lower economic classes who tended to interact with police for reasons other than drug use. "These distinctions were institutionalized in the Harrison [Narcotics Tax] Act of of 1914," he says (p. 8).
If our criminal/medical framing of addiction is correct, then why, he questions, haven't we made more progress in fighting it using law enforcement and medicine? On the other hand, if other frameworks are correct, we would expect approaches related to those other frameworks to be more successful. For example, if drug use is a self-destructive choice (as Heyman believes), we'd expect to see success from programs that teach people to make better choices (as, he says, we do -- see p. 20).
He uses the DSM's definition of addiction. (pp. 27-28) He says the DSM only considers drugs and gambling as the instigators of addiction (as opposed to something like video games) because "[d]rugs are more likely than any other substance or activity to produce behaviorally toxic effects, to function as specious rewards, to not inhibit their own consumption, and to derail global cost-benefit analysis." (p. 150)
Researchers often describe addiction as a "chronic, relapsing disease," meaning addicts try to quit but fail. (p. 56) However, arriving at this conclusion by studying patients in clinics is wrong-headed because these people "are by definition not representative: they were in treatment." (p. 67) The author instead studied addicts' autobiographical statements and concluded that most addicts quit by age 30 -- and did so without a clinic -- in large part because of the pressures and responsibilities of adulthood. (p. 64, 70, 84) Simply as a matter of probability, he suggests that quitting drugs over the age of 30 should be thought of as "resolution" rather than "remission" of the addiction. (p. 77)
Economics and behaviorism aren't very good at accounting for self-destructive behavior. (p. 134) Many people from "seventeenth-century preachers" to "twenty-first-century addiction scientists" claim that people always choose what is in their own best interest and if they do otherwise then it probably wasn't a free choice. Yet poets since Homer have always known otherwise; artists show people "knowingly, willingly, and persistently pursuing self-destructive ends." (pp. 101-102). The author argues that "medical evidence did not turn alcoholism into a disease, but rather the assumption that voluntary behavior is not self-destructive turned alcoholism into a disease." (p. 99)
The concept of self-interest must be broken down into short-term and long-term interest. To an addict, drug use seems attractive in the moment. To steer the addict away from drugs, one must generally make the drug seem less attractive in the short-term or else persuade the addict to take a long-range view and delay gratification in favor of other activities that will be more rewarding later on. (p. 124) In defending the choice to use drugs, the addict may try to argue away the idea of long-term interest, saying that this is a "special occasion" or the "last time." As Heyman explains, "The global perspective requires a continuing sequence of choices. When there is just one choice, only the local perspective applies. When a meteor is heading for Earth, it is okay to eat cheesecake." (p. 132) Clearly this is a fallacy. If I may insert my own comment, practically speaking, when someone is considering drug use, it's not a special occasion and it's never the last time. Unfortunately, Heyman says, "a person who never chose to be an addict ends up an addict" (p. 133) because of repeated choices to use drugs 'just this one last time.' Because of this effect, people tend to make better long-term choices when they're presented with sets of choices rather than atomistic choices. (p. 137) When the choice to use drugs is considered as part of a set of other choices, like keeping one's job and family, it's harder to justify the short-term gratification. We spontaneously design such sets of choices when we plan, for example, a diet, but it's difficult and it "takes imagination and forethought." (p. 139) So, rather than calculating the long-term self-interest value for each choice, we can simplify it by following rules (such as only eating chocolate once a week and never using drugs). (pp. 161-2)
We tend to classify things as diseases as we learn more about them, because learning more about how things operate makes us feel less in control of them and makes them seem involuntary. Voluntary behavior, or behavior considered to be in the moral sphere, is defined as "behavior that is not understood". (pp. 108-109) That's the wrong way to go about deciding what's voluntary, according to Heyman. How do we really find out if a behavior is voluntary? Typically, we examine the person's behavior, rather than examining their brain. (pp. 97-98) We investigate whether the behavior can be influenced by "costs, benefits, the opinions of others, culture values, and the myriad of other factors that influence decisions." (pp. 103-104) In the case of addiction, he says it is, since many addicts quit using drugs when there are sufficient social pressures.
Drug use can alter a user's brain, but that doesn't mean the user no longer has a choice in how to deal with those changes. The user can learn to manage his or her cravings for the drug. (p. 97) When s/he does not, it simply means s/he is voluntarily choosing something self-destructive. People voluntarily do self-destructive things all the time. That in itself doesn't mean their behavior is a symptom of a mental or physical illness. (p. 87)
If our criminal/medical framing of addiction is correct, then why, he questions, haven't we made more progress in fighting it using law enforcement and medicine? On the other hand, if other frameworks are correct, we would expect approaches related to those other frameworks to be more successful. For example, if drug use is a self-destructive choice (as Heyman believes), we'd expect to see success from programs that teach people to make better choices (as, he says, we do -- see p. 20).
He uses the DSM's definition of addiction. (pp. 27-28) He says the DSM only considers drugs and gambling as the instigators of addiction (as opposed to something like video games) because "[d]rugs are more likely than any other substance or activity to produce behaviorally toxic effects, to function as specious rewards, to not inhibit their own consumption, and to derail global cost-benefit analysis." (p. 150)
Researchers often describe addiction as a "chronic, relapsing disease," meaning addicts try to quit but fail. (p. 56) However, arriving at this conclusion by studying patients in clinics is wrong-headed because these people "are by definition not representative: they were in treatment." (p. 67) The author instead studied addicts' autobiographical statements and concluded that most addicts quit by age 30 -- and did so without a clinic -- in large part because of the pressures and responsibilities of adulthood. (p. 64, 70, 84) Simply as a matter of probability, he suggests that quitting drugs over the age of 30 should be thought of as "resolution" rather than "remission" of the addiction. (p. 77)
Economics and behaviorism aren't very good at accounting for self-destructive behavior. (p. 134) Many people from "seventeenth-century preachers" to "twenty-first-century addiction scientists" claim that people always choose what is in their own best interest and if they do otherwise then it probably wasn't a free choice. Yet poets since Homer have always known otherwise; artists show people "knowingly, willingly, and persistently pursuing self-destructive ends." (pp. 101-102). The author argues that "medical evidence did not turn alcoholism into a disease, but rather the assumption that voluntary behavior is not self-destructive turned alcoholism into a disease." (p. 99)
The concept of self-interest must be broken down into short-term and long-term interest. To an addict, drug use seems attractive in the moment. To steer the addict away from drugs, one must generally make the drug seem less attractive in the short-term or else persuade the addict to take a long-range view and delay gratification in favor of other activities that will be more rewarding later on. (p. 124) In defending the choice to use drugs, the addict may try to argue away the idea of long-term interest, saying that this is a "special occasion" or the "last time." As Heyman explains, "The global perspective requires a continuing sequence of choices. When there is just one choice, only the local perspective applies. When a meteor is heading for Earth, it is okay to eat cheesecake." (p. 132) Clearly this is a fallacy. If I may insert my own comment, practically speaking, when someone is considering drug use, it's not a special occasion and it's never the last time. Unfortunately, Heyman says, "a person who never chose to be an addict ends up an addict" (p. 133) because of repeated choices to use drugs 'just this one last time.' Because of this effect, people tend to make better long-term choices when they're presented with sets of choices rather than atomistic choices. (p. 137) When the choice to use drugs is considered as part of a set of other choices, like keeping one's job and family, it's harder to justify the short-term gratification. We spontaneously design such sets of choices when we plan, for example, a diet, but it's difficult and it "takes imagination and forethought." (p. 139) So, rather than calculating the long-term self-interest value for each choice, we can simplify it by following rules (such as only eating chocolate once a week and never using drugs). (pp. 161-2)
We tend to classify things as diseases as we learn more about them, because learning more about how things operate makes us feel less in control of them and makes them seem involuntary. Voluntary behavior, or behavior considered to be in the moral sphere, is defined as "behavior that is not understood". (pp. 108-109) That's the wrong way to go about deciding what's voluntary, according to Heyman. How do we really find out if a behavior is voluntary? Typically, we examine the person's behavior, rather than examining their brain. (pp. 97-98) We investigate whether the behavior can be influenced by "costs, benefits, the opinions of others, culture values, and the myriad of other factors that influence decisions." (pp. 103-104) In the case of addiction, he says it is, since many addicts quit using drugs when there are sufficient social pressures.
Drug use can alter a user's brain, but that doesn't mean the user no longer has a choice in how to deal with those changes. The user can learn to manage his or her cravings for the drug. (p. 97) When s/he does not, it simply means s/he is voluntarily choosing something self-destructive. People voluntarily do self-destructive things all the time. That in itself doesn't mean their behavior is a symptom of a mental or physical illness. (p. 87)
September 15, 2017
Pretty good book... maybe one day I'll write my critique on it... its a good critique. Addiction is not a choice, but a forced choice... its an act of rebellion.
August 6, 2020
An excellent case contrary to the disease model of addiction.
December 20, 2013
I enjoyed this book, although I will definitely say it isn't light reading for the lay person. This book is probably best read by those at least somewhat familiar with research methodology.
That said, I think the author does a good job of explaining his reasoning throughout the book, and although there are a few things I'd be interested to know more about, I think this text was well put together. The author explains addiction in terms of being a disorder based on voluntary behavior rather than involuntary behavior and challenges the notion that voluntary behavior is necessarily always rational or not self-destructive. The author also does a good job of not making the issue a moral one, even if it is an issue of voluntary choice. His focus is on how a better knowledge of how addiction functions can lead to better treatments.
The author does state that AA and similar programs have proven effectiveness, and I have heard the opposite in recent years, that addicts tend to quit at identical rates whether they join one of these programs or not. I'm not sure which studies are more recent, although the author does not seem to be aware of the studies that show a relative ineffectiveness of these programs.
I would also be very curious to see the author do more exploring into what devolves into addiction from just drug use. As he states multiple times, many people use substances like cocaine and heroin and do not become addicted. The author posits a few interesting variables that contribute to this, but many of them seemed to focus on near total abstinence or total addiction. There are entire subsets of population that use these substances from time to time (chippers, as the author might say) that do not become addicted in any significant fashion, and I feel as if the author skirts around this population for the most part. Obviously, it would require more research and more detailed analysis of drug use patterns, but I think it could ultimately yield some rewarding data. It is also interesting to me that in his estimation of global equilibrium, drug use is never preferred. It would seem that for someone who does not struggle with addiction that occasional drug use could be a part of the global equilibrium, but that would require a discussion with the author as to how he developed his equations.
Overall, I think the author is on a good track. I would be curious to have a discussion with him about choice and certain other psychological disorders (anxiety, etc.) because certain cognitive behavioral approaches to these disorders indicate that there is some amount of choice involved, that the person suffering the disorder has some hidden benefit to it (for instance believing that worrying about something may prevent it from happening or being in a state of worry leads to lots of comfort and reassurance from others they fear they may not receive otherwise). Obviously, not all psychological problems fall into this category, but some of them may that don't qualify as addiction.
Probably a good book for anyone who is interested in working with psychoactive drugs either in research or therapy, especially the treatment and understanding of addicts.
That said, I think the author does a good job of explaining his reasoning throughout the book, and although there are a few things I'd be interested to know more about, I think this text was well put together. The author explains addiction in terms of being a disorder based on voluntary behavior rather than involuntary behavior and challenges the notion that voluntary behavior is necessarily always rational or not self-destructive. The author also does a good job of not making the issue a moral one, even if it is an issue of voluntary choice. His focus is on how a better knowledge of how addiction functions can lead to better treatments.
The author does state that AA and similar programs have proven effectiveness, and I have heard the opposite in recent years, that addicts tend to quit at identical rates whether they join one of these programs or not. I'm not sure which studies are more recent, although the author does not seem to be aware of the studies that show a relative ineffectiveness of these programs.
I would also be very curious to see the author do more exploring into what devolves into addiction from just drug use. As he states multiple times, many people use substances like cocaine and heroin and do not become addicted. The author posits a few interesting variables that contribute to this, but many of them seemed to focus on near total abstinence or total addiction. There are entire subsets of population that use these substances from time to time (chippers, as the author might say) that do not become addicted in any significant fashion, and I feel as if the author skirts around this population for the most part. Obviously, it would require more research and more detailed analysis of drug use patterns, but I think it could ultimately yield some rewarding data. It is also interesting to me that in his estimation of global equilibrium, drug use is never preferred. It would seem that for someone who does not struggle with addiction that occasional drug use could be a part of the global equilibrium, but that would require a discussion with the author as to how he developed his equations.
Overall, I think the author is on a good track. I would be curious to have a discussion with him about choice and certain other psychological disorders (anxiety, etc.) because certain cognitive behavioral approaches to these disorders indicate that there is some amount of choice involved, that the person suffering the disorder has some hidden benefit to it (for instance believing that worrying about something may prevent it from happening or being in a state of worry leads to lots of comfort and reassurance from others they fear they may not receive otherwise). Obviously, not all psychological problems fall into this category, but some of them may that don't qualify as addiction.
Probably a good book for anyone who is interested in working with psychoactive drugs either in research or therapy, especially the treatment and understanding of addicts.
April 17, 2012
This book is really a mixed bag. Chapters 1 and 2 had some serious conceptual problems with them. By chapter 3, I was literally writing "How the hell did Harvard Press publish this?" in the margins. Does he have no one at his home university that he can consult with about ethnographic reviews? This chapter is a joke. Things turned around in Chs 4 and 5. The information that he provides is actually engaging, and I appreciated the fact that he took a critical approach to so many attempts to explain addictive behavior. Chapter 6 carries the brunt of his thesis. I found this really interesting to think about. I don't know if I am sold on it, but it was thought provoking. Chapter 7 is preachy and occasionally illogical and should be skipped.
March 17, 2011
Having researched much on this topic I was surprised to learn a few new things in this book.
I was also surprised that after Heyman disproves the disease theory, he goes on to still recommend alcoholics anomymous, which has been the public relations machine for the disease theory. Heyman stresses the social value of making healthy bonds in aa and not the ideology.
He is a very knowledgeable man on the subject and I feel privileged to have been able to pick his brain during lecture (or torture him.)
I was also surprised that after Heyman disproves the disease theory, he goes on to still recommend alcoholics anomymous, which has been the public relations machine for the disease theory. Heyman stresses the social value of making healthy bonds in aa and not the ideology.
He is a very knowledgeable man on the subject and I feel privileged to have been able to pick his brain during lecture (or torture him.)
January 27, 2012
Addiction is no joke. Once you are hooked; you are messed up until you choose to get away. This book defends all the ideas of why we should not have any pity on those drug addicts; because they will either die or find their way out before 30. Really scary.
September 14, 2011
I was very impressed with this book. If you are interested in an academic and honest evaluation that runs in the face of the current addiction as disease paradigm-this might be your best choice.
February 17, 2019
I highly recommend this book to anyone. It's written in clear, simple language. I also had trouble putting the book down. I tend to read slowly and I read it quicker than I do some books with less difficult content. The book is about addiction and you'll learn a lot about addiction by reading the book. However, the book is also about choice in general. The book actually changed the way I think about choice, voluntary action and some of the debates we see people having lately about such things. The author mentions all the key points made by prominent researchers and clinicians who deal with addiction. He also has great responses to them. He has information and decent research to back up his claims. He does NOT claim that addiction is a choice. He claims that no one chooses to be an addict, but the individual choices they repeatedly make lead them to behavior patterns that people would call addiction. He delves into the history of the concept of addiction, the way choice has been spoken of in the past, the research on addiction, research on choice and how all of this interrelates. Please, read the book in its entirety for the important details (the details are important and interesting!).
I have a few issues with the book and they would probably only be understood (or potentially helpful) if you've read the entire book. Heyman mentioned in the book that AA works. I do not dispute that it could work well for certain populations, but I do have an issue with the religious aspect. I am not convinced that "spirituality" is necessary to stop using drugs. The "higher power" idea has much less meaning (or is barely coherent) without the original Christian message of AA (it is a slightly different version of the Oxford Group and the original AA writings are anti-atheist and anti-agnostic). Secular alternatives to AA are needed if we truly want people to make more rational choices (and we don't want to brainwash people to become religious, which is not always less harmful than addiction). Also, his claim that mutual support programs like AA are mainly only helpful for addiction is not necessarily true.
Some psychiatric disorders are maintained through bad choices in a similar way to addiction (though I definitely admit that there are differences). For instance, social anxiety disorder. There are mutual support groups springing up for that disorder around the country on the meet up website. They involve "exposure meetings," "support meetings," and "social meetings." They offer people with social anxiety a sense of community and help them stop engaging in avoidant behaviors. If you look at interventions like "exposure therapy" for anxiety disorders and "behavioral activation" for depression, taking a global perspective on choice is important in those interventions. Clients can either avoid what makes them anxious, feeling more comfortable now, or they can feel some discomfort now and over the long term overall have more positive activities to engage in (since they are no longer avoiding them). Depressed people can lay in bed all day now since that's what they feel like doing or they can force themselves to engage in potentially pleasurable activities now, knowing that later they will enjoy themselves more overall. There are other examples.
Schizophrenia and some other disorders are arguably not perpetuated by voluntary behavior (aside from maybe choosing not to take medications assuming one responds to them). One other point I want to make is that not all intoxicating substances are addictive. LSD is an obvious example and the DSM (at least the DSM IV) admits that. Also, I wonder if public education in choice making could be a helpful intervention. Like educating people in the notion of habituation. I think that if one combines Gene Heyman's ideas with those of the neuroscientist Carl Hart who wrote the book High Price, one might reach different conclusions about how to approach drugs.
I actually think Heyman makes too strong of a claim regarding the danger of addictive substances (NOT that some of them aren't dangerous!). Hart gives reasons why this is the case. There are probably more chippers than people like to acknowledge. Harm reduction is not mentioned enough (if at all) by Heyman. I don't think that EVERYONE would choose to never use drugs commonly called addiction if they were thinking rationally. It depends on the person, their response to the drug and the setting involved. Some people may do just fine using a given substance occasionally in a controlled fashion. It really depends. They might be happier over all doing so in some circumstances. It depends on individual differences, the environment, the drug, etc. I think we should take a global perspective toward the choices we make to intervene on addiction. The criminalization of drugs (and even some current moral perspectives on them) seems to lead to more suffering long term than the substances themselves. I think a global approach to interventions shows that, but the interventions used have been more local, based on knee jerk flawed judgements about the substances, the users and what it means to alter one's state of consciousness. Over all, I still love the book. I just might disagree regarding some of the implications of some of Heyman's ideas.
I have a few issues with the book and they would probably only be understood (or potentially helpful) if you've read the entire book. Heyman mentioned in the book that AA works. I do not dispute that it could work well for certain populations, but I do have an issue with the religious aspect. I am not convinced that "spirituality" is necessary to stop using drugs. The "higher power" idea has much less meaning (or is barely coherent) without the original Christian message of AA (it is a slightly different version of the Oxford Group and the original AA writings are anti-atheist and anti-agnostic). Secular alternatives to AA are needed if we truly want people to make more rational choices (and we don't want to brainwash people to become religious, which is not always less harmful than addiction). Also, his claim that mutual support programs like AA are mainly only helpful for addiction is not necessarily true.
Some psychiatric disorders are maintained through bad choices in a similar way to addiction (though I definitely admit that there are differences). For instance, social anxiety disorder. There are mutual support groups springing up for that disorder around the country on the meet up website. They involve "exposure meetings," "support meetings," and "social meetings." They offer people with social anxiety a sense of community and help them stop engaging in avoidant behaviors. If you look at interventions like "exposure therapy" for anxiety disorders and "behavioral activation" for depression, taking a global perspective on choice is important in those interventions. Clients can either avoid what makes them anxious, feeling more comfortable now, or they can feel some discomfort now and over the long term overall have more positive activities to engage in (since they are no longer avoiding them). Depressed people can lay in bed all day now since that's what they feel like doing or they can force themselves to engage in potentially pleasurable activities now, knowing that later they will enjoy themselves more overall. There are other examples.
Schizophrenia and some other disorders are arguably not perpetuated by voluntary behavior (aside from maybe choosing not to take medications assuming one responds to them). One other point I want to make is that not all intoxicating substances are addictive. LSD is an obvious example and the DSM (at least the DSM IV) admits that. Also, I wonder if public education in choice making could be a helpful intervention. Like educating people in the notion of habituation. I think that if one combines Gene Heyman's ideas with those of the neuroscientist Carl Hart who wrote the book High Price, one might reach different conclusions about how to approach drugs.
I actually think Heyman makes too strong of a claim regarding the danger of addictive substances (NOT that some of them aren't dangerous!). Hart gives reasons why this is the case. There are probably more chippers than people like to acknowledge. Harm reduction is not mentioned enough (if at all) by Heyman. I don't think that EVERYONE would choose to never use drugs commonly called addiction if they were thinking rationally. It depends on the person, their response to the drug and the setting involved. Some people may do just fine using a given substance occasionally in a controlled fashion. It really depends. They might be happier over all doing so in some circumstances. It depends on individual differences, the environment, the drug, etc. I think we should take a global perspective toward the choices we make to intervene on addiction. The criminalization of drugs (and even some current moral perspectives on them) seems to lead to more suffering long term than the substances themselves. I think a global approach to interventions shows that, but the interventions used have been more local, based on knee jerk flawed judgements about the substances, the users and what it means to alter one's state of consciousness. Over all, I still love the book. I just might disagree regarding some of the implications of some of Heyman's ideas.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews