Carl Hart, PhD Q & A at Nobel Conference 51

[@marymarymary9377]

Dr. Hart KILLS it here! 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@RosannaMiller]

The laws allow a lot of hypocrisy, mistreatment, discrimination, and abuse from others of those who have used drugs.

[@MrCBTman]

I agree with Dr. Hart that merely liking the feeling of opiate use is not clear evidence of a genetic predisposition towards abusing the drug. Can't we think of many other situations and experiences (I.e. s need to soothe hypersrousal following trauma, an inability to self-soothe due to attachment issues, etc) that might lead someone to have a preference for that feeling? Nobody on that stage backed up the genetic predisposition argument with anything approaching convincing evidence.

[@Unclejamsarmy]

Interesting to watch but I wish the other panelists had constructed better arguments and specific pieces of evidence when opposing his ideas. There seemed to be words of agreement, but statements and a general feeling of resistance to his conclusions without much to back it up. If anyone has links to relevant videos concerning the evidence around these issues drop em!

[@andydavis6497]

Where is the lecture?

[@austinzollner577]

+Andy Davis My school, Gustavus Adolphus College in Saint Peter, MN.

[@Bluelightcheaphotel]

Looks like I missed a good discussion! I have been listening to Carl for awhile (shamefully, the Joe Rogan Experience) while also reading some textbooks on pharmacology and addiction and have to agree that some of his viewpoints are a bit counterintuitive according to the college books. I think his achievements added with the fact that he's received as being somewhat edgy and popular makes people think that he's ahead of the curve. That being said, I do kind of side with his thoughts on addiction as a genetic predisposition and addiction as a disease model, not for the fact that I bought his brand but because I've been there. Wouldn't there have to be genetic modification done to rescue someone from a deterministic addiction? It sounds dumber when I write it

[@michaelbrunner1461]

I agree with Dr. Hart that it isn't "the drug" that contributes most significantly to addiction - - for some people. The danger in Dr. Hart's message is that we should turn our focus away from the drug. For some vulnerable individuals, whether the vulnerability is due to genetics or life circumstances, the drug is the problem. In other words, stay away from the drug and the vulnerable individual avoids addiction. Dr. Hart further undercuts his credibility when he suggests that there is no evidence that genes contribute to addiction vulnerability. Really?! I am stunned by this statement from a professor at Columbia University. It is well-established that genes contribute significantly to addiction risk. If Carl Hart doesn't grasp this basic concept about addiction, what else is he confused about? Should his ideas be trusted?

[@depthoffield4744]

+Michael Brunner Hey, what happened with all the comments here?!