Opiates Books

The Book is a masterpiece of confusion, philosophy, humor and a religion that only starts out seeming ridiculous, as you read and reread the book you start to find the wisdom that Malaclypse the Younger was trying to convey and yet wrap his own head around at the time. I have owned three copies of this book and evey time i rebuy it and reread it i get somthing new from it. So grab your copy and all hail Eris.

These profoundly entertaining scriptures come close to rivaling James Robinson's edition of the The Nag Hammadi Library as the most important contribution to 20th century metaphysics. And not only for those who consider Discordianism as a form - albeit a weird one - of Gnosticism.

Certain passages are more inspiring than others, like The Enlightenment Of Zarathud and Lord Omar's Epistle To The Paranoids, although only the orthodox version of the latter appears here. According to the Samaritan Codex (jealously guarded by a heterodox sect) and the Octuagint there is an additional verse which reads: "Ye erect tall buildings, only to cast yerselves from the rooves."

The same Codex (but not the Octuagint) also contains The Epistle To The Neurotics by St. Euthanasius that sadly didn't make it into this edition. For well neigh 3000 years scholars have been debating its authenticity. The editors of this edition could at least have included it as an appendix.

These minor gripes aside, I do recommend this work to all those who are searching for the meaning of life, the universe and everything. These exegeses by Malaclypse & Omar of the thoughts of Eris, Greek goddess of Chaos, are amusing and thought-provoking. If you appreciate this type of humour, you will love the work of Robert Anton Wilson.

Finally! Principia Discordia in hardback! It's about time too. It seems I've been waiting thirty odd years for this version. I've worn out and given away so many paperback copies I have now gifted myself a permanent version. Just check out all those neat little additions too, like the 'outroductions' and the bit about the...

No, I'm not going to spoil it for you. Just buy it!

It's awesome to finally see what may be one of the most stealthily influential books of the later 20th century in hardback. A definite must have, especially if you're like me and have already destroyed two paperback copies from over reading...

I recently noticed that I couldn't find my purple version of this book. I have absolutely no idea what happened to it. But if that hadn't happened, I never would have known that there was a hard cover version out. Something mysterious is going on. You should buy this book.

"Brainstorming": was published in 1989, just in time for a new drug war. There have other new, new drug wars since. "Brainstorming" was not encouraging, but it is still worth reading.

Richard Nixon was no more sincere about drugs than about anything else. Nevertheless, Nixon's drug war had one good, dramatic and unplanned result.

Solomon Snyder, a laboratory medical researcher, had not paid any attention to opiate addiction until a friend was appointed Nixon's drug czar. By a little bureaucratic one-upsmanship, they managed to shake loose some money (about 2% of the federal antidrug effort) for basic research.

The results were immediate and extraordinary. Snyder and his student Candace Pert identified the receptors in the brain that accept opiates. This explained the mysterious effect of naloxone, which was already used in 1973 to shut down an opium overdose.

Other researchers found similar receptors in the pituitary gland, a big surprise.

The obvious question was: Why had evolution equipped humans with specialized nerve systems to recognize the juice of a poppy? (Another of Snyder's students, a high school student, David Aposhian, showed that all vertebrates have opiate receptors, and it was later shown that invertebrates do, too.)

The answer was that the body creates its own powerful drugs, later named enkephalins and endorphins, and the juice of the poppy happens to mimic their effect.

This led to hopes for a powerful synthetic drug that would block addicting opiates, and for new, non-addicting painkillers. Snyder explains why neither hope was fulfilled. Nor are they likely to be.

On the other hand, the research techniques -- and even more important, the conceptual innovations -- used in the opiate research opened a window on an unsuspected feature of physiology. Though a failure from the antidrug point of view, the knowledge gained has been helpful against many other diseases, such as diabetes.

This is not at all what Nixon and his henchmen intended. They just wanted votes.

George Bush I's drug war has already had its unexpected effect. Unexpected by me, anyway. A most diverse array of commentators -- including many with impeccable conservative credentials, like Milton Friedman -- have responded to Bush's call for action with countercalls for realism.

Snyder is among these. In 15 lucid pages he explains why antidrug laws, starting with the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, turned drug use in the United States from a mild problem, which resulted in no deaths, into a continuous disaster that has killed tens of thousands.

Provocative thoughts are packed into Snyder's slim volume, and reforming America's moralistic approach to drugs seems to be among the least significant to him.

His exciting story about breakthrough research has its moments of scandal. "One might have thought that our work identifying and characterizing opiate receptors would be welcomed by narcotic researchers," but one would have been wrong. But beyond telling this interesting tale, Snyder seems most concerned to use his own experience to remark upon the best way that effective scientific research can be fostered.

Government and science are hard to control. Bad motives sometimes produce good results, and the result is even more true. Snyder, an earnest man and therefore an anachronism in the '80s, has a moral to make -- that the handing down of knowledge and values, from teacher to student, is the most effective method in scientific research.

There is not a single word in "Brainstorming" about Bush I's drug war, but the history from this veteran of the last one condemns the repetition of mistakes that were old a generation ago.

2007 UPDATE: Calls for "realism" about drugs are seldom heard in the 21st century, except from users and Libertarians. The new "realism" demands open-ended, open wallet, endless "treatment," although it is now obvious that treatment for addiction doesn't work, at least not often enough to deserve public funding. Besides, alcohol is still the costliest drug of them all.

The author, David Courtwright, provides an updated, historical account of one of the most puzzling questions on the American frontier: how did the drug (opium) addiction get so bad here-- so quickly. Then, he fine tunes his answer with another in which he describes the absolutely harsh laws, fines, and imprisonment of those who become caught in the law enforcement cycle of addiction. He shows quite clearly how doctors and politics played sessions of sanctioning, then criminalizing some of those who played this wheel of misfortune and are still spinning in it. One person "gets" 15 years for a first offense !!! It is written quite directly and to the point, in a reader- friendly fashion, and most everyone I know would enjoy his writing method. Propaganda, lies, exaggerations are used by our government to seeingly make these wonderful medicines, a social vampire. The author is patient and almost penitent in showing how society is punished much of the same way the addicts are for their wrongdoings In an wonderful plant meant to help for chronic pain and suffering for thousands of years, we have demonized it to the point of making it a menace. In that irony, there is no justification. Very little is mentioned of the FDA or DEA and it documeted very nicely. The notes in the back are FANTASTIC!! guyairey

I am using this book to help prepare a class in opioid replacement therapy. This book has great articles, each of which are very informative. I will probably make this book required reading in my class.

Why is it that so often there are multiple discoveries in science? In this book Cozzens looks at the 4 groups that "simultaniously" discovered the opiate receptor and shows that what happens is a complex social process. The process includes the ultimate identity of the discovery itself and the pressure from other scientists, publications, and values. Using citation indices, interviews, publications she dissects a case where the historical record is still fresh. She makes new observations about "the time being right" as the reason or reinterpretation being the reason.

This book is sociology at its best.

Dr./Rabbi Antelman presents in a very easy read the history behind the various schisms in Judaism, when they happened, for what reason and by whom. "To Eliminate the Opiate" is the "From Time Immemorial" of untold Jewish History.

It is my opinion that when the normal, unknowledged and even the well versed Jew reads these volumes they will begin to ask themselves "Is this true?" The reason why they will ask this is due to their faith's obvious schism which now honors all the abominations and digressions that their religion and their Bible deem as "evil", "immoral" or pure corruptions.

This is a very good book for both Jews and Non-Jews alike to truly understand Jews, Judaism and the various anti-Semitic claims that the ignorant place over these people. Fabulous to say the very least. 5/5.

Moving beyond the stereotypical image of the unemployed, criminal heoin addict, this valuable reference book indentifies the expanding parameters of opiate abuse and addiction. Thoroughly examined in these pages are the dangers of chemicals diverted from pharmacy shelves to street dealers; misused prescription painkillers; and an overview of methadone maintainance programs, their history, and possible future growth.

Drs. David E. Smith, Donald R. Wesson, and Donald J. Tusel bring to this book extensive clinical treatment experience and research knowledge gained through their work in the Haight-Asbury Free Medical Clinics, the University of California at San Francisco, The Merritt Peralta Chemical Dependency Recovery Hospital, and the Substance Abuse Clinic at the San Francisco Veterans Administration Medical Center. Their expertise is easily accessible to all medical and chemical dependency professionals in chapters on:

* Assessment techniques
* Detoxification considerations
* Narcotic antagonist, naltrexone, treatment
* Drug-free treatment vs. methadone treatment
* Relapse, relapse prevention, and recovery
--- from book's back cover

If you're the kind of person who gets things, you'll get this book (pamphlet?) and love it... To all future popes, try and keep a straight face about the *order* around you in every day life.

Satire and seriousness, parody and philosophy, reverence and irreverence in approximately equal doses. The only "religion" upon which I am willing to hang my hat. Your mileage may vary. Hail Eris!

I have read every book ever written except for this one and it is my favorite. I'm not sure how this happened, but it did. As soon as I read it I'll retract this review.

Awesome book, but ya gotta read it at least 5 times to truly understand it... heck, I just ordered my 2nd copy!
gobble gobble, greyfaces!
Saint Virotik, K.S.C., P.O.E.E., Tormenter of Overly-Inebriated Greyfaces

This is the most unique religious text I've ever read. A lot of people will ask if it's a joke or if it's serious. If you understand even the most basic points made in this text you will know that it's both.

On the side of this being a really thoughtful religious/philosophicval text, I understood that war and conflict exist because people want to impose order. If everyone accepted chaos, there would be no war.

On the side of this being a big joke, I laughed a lot while reading this, especially at the 3rd commandment. There is some really great absurdist jokes, and hilarious stories.

What you think of this book will depend entirely on how you read it. I think it would be a great gift for anyone with an interest in religion or stoner humor. You never know, they might learn something.

I suffer from chroinc pain do to a car accident a few years ago. Doctors currently refuse to help me because of the amt. of pain medicine I need to survive. This book has saved me. No more doctor shopping. It's insanely easy too.

A must-read if you want to know something about addiction and about the politico-medical complex. In general, my personal policy is that if Theodore Dalrymple wrote it, I read it. That said, however, this book is not his best effort in terms of his usually elegant, witty, and engaging writing style. It is repetitive and there are unusual mistakes, from punctuation to grammar, as if he was in a rush to be done. That is why I give the book only four stars instead of the five stars and two thumbs up this man usually deserves.

If you are the kind of person who delights in an author that has the rare ability to change your mind, then Theodore Dalrymple is your man. He doesn't just expose the origins and motivations behind the modern myths of opiate/heroin addiction; he beats them to death, and then runs them over a few times just for good measure. Dr. Dalrymple is a bit verbose, but in a somewhat delightful fashion. Perhaps it is more that we readers of the modern era have lost some of our appreciation for the beauty of the English language. But this is a good book for a relaxing weekend, and makes for some excellent water cooler conversation the following week.

Theodore Dalrymple makes a convincing argument to show that almost everything we 'know' about opiate addiction is way off the mark. Drawing on his vast experience, he methodically debunks the myths we believe are true about the 'addict' and the 'addiction' itself, and he is sceptical that the government and people in our institutions are capable of changing the way we handle this (largely social and moral) "illness". I always have something to learn from his essays and am always interested in his perceptions (which are usually close to the truth - if not always dead on) and intrigued by his consummate skill as a writer in bringing searing insight and rationale (based upon empirical evidence) to the issues he tackles. He can be satirical and witty (as well as compassionate) but comes across as one (prophetically) railing against the prevalence of a wilful and destructive blindness to this problem.

As a point I must admit I wouldn't buy this book, let alone read anymore then the interview the author gave to Front Page. Here is the letter sent to the author.


Mr. Dalrymple,

After doing a quick search online to arm myself with information regarding opiate withdrawal I stumbled upon your interview with Front Page. I must ask Mr, Dalrymple as it begs the question, have you yourself ever experienced withdrawal from opiates?

I myself have. In fact after a doctor decided that the ruptured disc and pinched sciatic nerve required an opiate based pain control regimen. It started out innocently enough with Lortab, but as my body started to have these "flu like symptoms" my doctor changed medications and levels. After a year and half of this hell, I found myself on Fentanyl patches (the doctor told me a 25 micro milligram patch was equal to 6 Lortab - He was WRONG.) Instead we would later find out that is was the equivalent to 5 Lortab an HOUR over the course of three days.

Once I found myself being told that I needed to wear a 75 micro milligram patch AND take four to six Lortab in a day, I snapped. I also never went to a life of crime to sustain a habit as you suggest ALL opiate addicted persons do, and I don't recall ever making a choice as you state to go from a casual user to a full blow addict. No, all I needed was a matter of weeks on a prescribed medication to become addicted. Against medical advice I decided no matter how much pain I would feel from my back I would not go on being dependent on any medication let alone medications such as these.

So began my withdrawals, with a doctor that had no intention or idea of how to do so. I have to completely disagree with your entire interview. For me this has not been a simple case of the "flu with marked anxiety for three days" but a living hell when I went to a 12 micro milligram patch. I didn't just suffer anxiety, oh no I suffered tremors, muscle spasms, fever, vomiting, either constipation or the latter, overwhelming fear and anxiety, raised heart rate - blood pressure, suicidal thoughts, flashbacks, night terrors, and my favorite hallucinations. To add a touch of life threating as you say opiate withdrawal is not I also had to be placed into the ICU for respitory failure - a little hard to fake. Now this make come as a shock to you but never in my life has the flu brought about that variety of symptoms.

Not once did I go to the doctor to ask for higher doses, nor did I attempt to quench the "thirst" for my petty life as a mother and spouse as you suggest in this description of opiate addicts making more out of there withdrawals, "it makes small and rather petty lives seem vast and possessed of a tragic grandeur. I believe this to be romantic clap-trap." No instead I suffered through over two months of tapering, I don't recommend it. I used very small doses never abusing them, in combination with Clonidine and Xanax. Now I must ask you if you realize that there are a great number of people out there who aren't part of your prison or slum research that are legitimately placed on these drugs by doctors who don't seem to know better or have an exit strategy for suffering far more severe than the "Flu."

I found your interview answers coarse, rude, and infuriating. I can only compare them to an ignorant man describing how easy childbirth through c-section would be without medication for a woman, I challenge you to either on your own or perhaps with a loved one go through withdrawals from opiates and then give another candid interview.

Everything you know about addiction is wrong. Heroin is not addictive--it takes a lot of hard work to become addicted to it--and withdrawal is, at most, mildly uncomfortable. Addicts do not commit crimes to buy drugs to avoid withdrawal; raher, those already criminal tend to become addicts. Why? Because of their bad ideas about how to live, ideas which percolated from middle-class intellectuals to lower-class petty criminals. In particular, Mill's view that all authority (including teachers' and cops') is against libery and self-expression led to the glamorizing of the criminal anti-hero, whose crimes are really virtues--an expression of his "authentic" "rebellion" against opressive "society". Criminals take drugs as another sign they are "rebels".

Dalrymple's criticism of the liberal drug dogma is quite insightful. The problem is, his own view is its exact mirror image--and the mirror image of an absurd position is itself absurd. For example, he is correct to say the "instant addiction/horrible witdrawal" liberal dogma is incosnsistent with demand to legalize drugs: if drugs really *were* that addictive and harmful, they surely should be kept illegal. However, if addicts' crimes are a free choice which has nothing to do with their alleged craving for drugs, why would legalizing drugs make it more likely for them to commit crimes--which he gives as an argument against legalization?

Similarly, he blames middle-class intellectual for making the lower class their playthings, sacrifising millions to the all-against-all culture of the slums in order to promote their unrealistic Millian view of "freedom" and "rebellion". But he suggests to stop offering addicts clean needles, hoping fear of HIV and hepatitis woud be an incentive to addicts to take less drugs. Isn't this sacrifising thousands of lower-class addicts to preventable diseases in order to support an unrealistic view of "moral responsiblity" held by middle class intellectuals--specifically, Dalrymple himself?

Dalyrmple's diagnosis of what ails liberal drug-addiction dogma is excellent; but his suggested cure is worse than the disease.