What do you think?
Rate this book


144 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 23, 2001
I want to like this book. It contains a lot of information about drugs in several relevant fields of study - history, biochemistry, law, econonomics, etc. - much of which was new to me. Two issues are holding me back from giving it more than two stars.
The first is factual. In the section on how drugs work (one of the more interesting sections, IMO), Iversen includes some discussion on tolerance, defining the phenomenon like so: "If the same drug is taken repeatedly, it may lead to a large increase in the liver enzyme(s) involved in its metabolism... the drug will... become less and less effective over time". After reading what Iversen has to say on the subject, one could be forgiven for thinking that that's all that tolerance is. Actually, what Iversen simply calls 'tolerance' is properly distinguished as 'pharmacokinetic tolerance'. There's also pharmacodynamic tolerance, which is quite common, and is the result of desensitized and downregulated (or upregulated in some cases) target receptors. Iversen doesn't mention that at all. I admit I'm picking at one small detail here, but this seems like a really weird and misleading thing for an expert to do, and it makes me wonder what weird and misleading things escaped my notice.
The second is Iversen's treatment of the ethical/political issues surrounding drug development and use. He's not totally unwilling to acknowledge that such issues exist, and to his credit, endorses ending the war on drugs, but in the political climate of recent years, that seems like the most milquetoast thing he could possibly take a principled stance on. Other than that, he's largely an uncritical apologist for the FDA and similar agencies. His position seems to be that regulation might seem like it's doing some harm, but obviously, regulation is a necessary evil, and obviously, we have the best of all possible regulatory agencies. On the subject of animal testing, he only briefly mentions that there's some activism against it, and does so without actually acknowledging that there are real ethical issues involved. I get the impression that he sees such activism as nothing more than a hindrance to progress, not worth taking seriously. This all leaves a rather poor taste in my mouth.